[Inquiry] Re: Futures Of Logical Graphs

[Jon Awbrey]

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

FOLG.  Note 10

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

Cybernetics List, Peirce List,

There was a faulty construction in the first paragraph
of my last note, so let me try to rewrite it like this:

| Briefly if roughly put, icons are signs that denote their objects by
| virtue of sharing properties with them.  To put it a bit more fully,
| icons are signs that receive their interpretant signs on account of
| having specific properties in common with their objects.

With the aim of embedding our consideration of logical graphs, as seems
most fitting, within Peirce's theory of triadic sign relations, we have
declared the first layers of our object, sign, and interpretant domains.
As we often do in formal studies, we've taken the sign and interpretant
domains to be the same set, !S! = !I!, calling it the "semiotic domain",
or, as I see I've done in other notes, the "syntactic domain".

Truth and Falsity, the objects that we've so far declared, are recognizable
as abstract objects, and like so many other hypostatic abstractions that we
use they have their use in moderating between a veritable profusion of more
concrete objects and more concrete signs, in "factoring complexity" as some
people say, despite the fact that some complexities are irreducible in fact.

That much of a stake in the ground will have to do as a philosophical tether
for now, since we are about to play out the syntactic line just about as far
as we can stretch it, and it can happen that some will forget this home port.

O Odysseus, O Humanity, O Lost ...

Jon Awbrey

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