[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Triadic Sign Relations In Practice

To: Ontolog Forum <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Arisbe List <arisbe@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jon Awbrey's Inquiry Project <inquiry@xxxxxxxxxx>
From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 07:07:54 -0400
Message-id: <4C73A80A.3080306@xxxxxxx>
Re: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2010-08/msg00210.html    (01)

Rich Cooper wrote:
 > Thanks for Peircifying the discussion so I (for one)
 > can start to figure out what Peirce is good for.
 > The triad we discussed earlier was
 > <sign, interpretANT, interpretER>.
 > The different triad you are presenting here is
 > <object,sign,interpretANT> with a fallen InterpretER.
 > How are these two triads related?  Clearly the only way
 > to take the InterpretER out of the issue is to make
 > the difficult to justify claim of objectivity --
 > "everyone perceives it this way".
 > Please explain the use of Everyone
 > as the observer, actor InterpretER.    (02)

Rich,    (03)

It is possible to formalize the relation between
interpreter-talk and interpretant-talk -- I made
one start at doing this here:    (04)

http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey/Essays/Prospects_For_Inquiry_Driven_Systems#    (05)

But I still think Peirce's homme-ble homme-ily about the
French Interpreter's ''Homme'' is sufficient to the task:    (06)

http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey/Papers/Information_%3D_Comprehension_%C3%97_Extension#Selection_18    (07)

The whole point using a 3-adic sign relation -- as distinguished
from the 2-adic sign relations of Descartes, Saussure, and others --
is to put the interpreter back into the process of interpretation.
As I have emphasized e-numerable times, the interpreter is in some
sense the whole of the relevant sign relation that we find involved
in a particular pattern of semiosis, for instance, a communication,
computation, inference, or inquiry.    (08)

Another way to view the relationship between the interpreter and the
sign relation is from the perspective of mathematical systems theory.
There we have a "system" moving through the states of its state space,
like one of those pinging blue GPS dots moving through the manifold of
some earthly domain's map or satellite view.  It is really nothing more
than a rhetorical turn of phrase to call that "representative point" by
by its office or title of "agent".  The properties of interest are all
systematic dynamic properties, but agent-talk gives us convenient ways
of phrasing questions and answers.  Technically speaking, we can call
the agent a "hypostatic abstraction" from the dynamics of the system.    (09)

Jon Awbrey    (010)

CC: Arisbe, Inquiry    (011)

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    (012)

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    (013)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>