[Inquiry] Re: Futures Of Logical Graphs -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

FOLG.  Discussion Note 31

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

Peirce List,

Let's go back to our abstracts of two statements from Peirce that,
if they do not exactly contradict each another, certainly do seem
to abrade one another:

| S_1.  There are symbols that do not involve either icons or indices in any manner.
|
| S_2.  Every symbol refers more or less indirectly to an icon and through an index.

One of the bits of still unfinished business that we have before us is to consider
the various meanings of "involve" that might be involved in S_1, and what, if any
linkage they may have with the relations of "refering to" and "referring through"
that are referenced in S_2.

Although I think it was already implied, the discussions of last week
induce me to include the relation of "functional dependency" to the
list of "meanings of involvement" that I had been contemplating.

| Meanings Of Involvement:
|
| Approximation
| Component (Relational)
| Constituent (Syntactic)
| Dependency (Functional)
| Explanation
| Implication
| Projection

I think it's clear that the general situation we have to consider involves
categories of structured objects and categories of structured signs both
of which may enjoy (or suffer) appreciable levels of complexity, both
in the population of the sets and in the complexion of the elements.
We will need to think about what sorts of conceptual frameworks
are adequate to handling these orders of complexity.

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o