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

[Jon Awbrey]

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

FOLG.  Discussion Note 37

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

JA = Jon Awbrey
JR = Joe Ransdell

Re: FOLG-DIS 36.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-November/003211.html
In: FOLG-DIS.     http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-November/thread.html#3167

Joe, Peirce List,

I turn to your individual points.

JR: What I am implicitly questioning is, I suppose,
    the legitimacy of the assumption that you are
    dealing with semiotic processes if you are
    not assuming your formal structures to be
    the structures of processes of the sort
    Peirce identified as semiosis.

In speaking about the "structures of processes" (SOP's),
I will assume for now that we understand each other about
the possibility and the practical necessity of approaching
the complete structures of processes in an organized fashion,
sifting and sorting the more generic levels of structure from
the more specific levels of structure.  As a practical matter,
we sometimes find the more concrete structures impressed on us
first and have to discover the more abstract structures in that
rawer data, while at other times we may begin with considering
the higher levels of organization and filling in the layers of
detail as we proceed.  There is, of course, what some people
call a "hermeneutic cycle", others a "solera process", and
still others a "method of iterative trial and error" that
recycles information through all the various levels of
organization, as I think Aristotle anciently marked.

In accord with this long-standing body of considerations,
let me fisrst take up the level of sign relations proper.

When I have a question about the legitimacy of the assumption that
something is a sign relation, I habitually turn to one of the more
adequate definitions of a sign relation, most prominently this one:

| A sign is something, A, which brings something, B,
| its interpretant sign determined or created by it,
| into the same sort of correspondence with something,
| C, its object, as that in which itself stands to C.
|
| C.S. Peirce, NEM 4, pp. 20-21, cf. p. 54 (1902).
|
| C.S. Peirce, [Application to the Carnegie Institution], L 75, pp. 13-73 in:
| Carolyn Eisele (ed.), 'The New Elements of Mathematics by Charles S. Peirce,
| Volume 4, Mathematical Philosophy', Mouton, The Hague, 1976.  Available here:
| Arisbe Website, http://members.door.net/arisbe/menu/library/bycsp/l75/l75.htm

Do the structures that I'm contemplating here
fall under this definition of a sign relation?
I think it is abundantly obvious that they do.

Jon Awbrey

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