Re: [ontolog-forum] Triadic Sign Relations

["AzamatAbdoullaev" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"That confuses me no end if Peirceans can?t tie the theory to some commonly understood reality for me.  Is there a more fruitful description that explains the language used and chosen for that representation?"

Rich,

The nature of signs and symbols and significations, their definition, elements, and types, was mainly established by Aristotle, Augustine, and Auquinas.

According to these classic sources, significance is a relationship between two sorts of things: signs and the kinds of things they signify (intend, express or mean), where one term necessarily causes something else to come to the mind. Distinguishing natural signs and conventional signs, the traditional theory of signs sets the following threefold partition of things:

1. There are things that are just things, not any sign at all;
2. There are things that are also signs of other things (as natural signs of the physical world and mental signs of the mind);
3. There are things that are always signs, as languages (natural and artificial) and other cultural nonverbal symbols, as documents, money, ceremonies, and rites. see a brief but comprehensive account, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign

Azamat Abdoullaev

----- Original Message -----

From: Rich Cooper

To: '[ontolog-forum] '

Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 6:38 AM

Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Triadic Sign Relations

Jon,

 

Thanks, so you teach that the "interpretant" (which is a noun) is actually naming an "interpreter" agent?  That contradicts intuition and seems odd. 

 

It seems odd specifically to name an active agent, performing the said interpretation, as a noun agent instead of as a performer of action verb agent, specifically the "interpreter" if said interpretant wishes to participate in the said discussion of naming the entire interpretation.  

 

That confuses me no end if Peirceans can?t tie the theory to some commonly understood reality for me.  Is there a more fruitful description that explains the language used and chosen for that representation?

 

Thanks,

-Rich

 

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper

EnglishLogicKernel.com

Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2

 

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jon Awbrey
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 7:11 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Triadic Sign Relations

 

Rich,

 

A ''sign relation'' is a set of elementary sign relations,

each of which is an ordered triple of the form (o, s, i).

In each triple, o is the "object", s is the "sign", and

i is the "interpretant sign", or "interpretant" for short.

Another way of saying this is that a sign relation L is

a subset of the cartesian product O x S x I of three sets,

called the "object domain" O, the "sign domain" S, and the

"interpretant (sign) domain" I.

 

That is the basic structure of a sign relation,

to which may be added many other dimensions of

interest, for instance, determination in time

or relative clarity of signs and interpretants.

 

As far as an "interpreter", "interpretive agent",

or "process of interpretation" is relevant to the

theory of sign relations, it may be identified with

the whole of some particular sign relation.

 

Cf. http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/SignRelation.html

 

Jon Awbrey

 

> John,

>

> While reading Peirce and related materials, I get a little uncertain over

> the terminology that different writers use.  It seems to me that there is

> ONLY ONE relation that requires three entries, and it contains the following

> properties:

>

> Interpretation event comprises:

> - "Sign" which is a distinct physical manifestation, communicable, object;

> - "Referent" the interpretation placed on the sign object;

> - "Interpretant" agent who interprets sign as referent in her belief system.

>

>

> Do I have the terms right, or do you (and/or others) used different terms

> for those three roles?

>

> Is the relation usually called "Interpretation" by Peirceans, or is there a

> preferred term for that triple also?

>

> Thanks for clarifying,

> -Rich

>

> Sincerely,

> Rich Cooper

> EnglishLogicKernel.com

> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2

 

--

 

inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/

mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey

knol: http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/3fkwvf69kridz/1

oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey

 

_________________________________________________________________

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ 

Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ 

Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/

Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/

To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J

To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

---

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ 
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ 
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (01)