Questions Concerning Certain Faculties Claimed For Signs
Re: Peirce List Discussion • Kirsti Määttänen
Seems valid to me. But it does not answer the quest for understanding.
The setup described in the previous post is the barest of beginnings. It is the grounds from which our understanding must grow, if it is to be sustained by the following two provisions:
- MAT. We take the methods and tools that Peirce provides us seriously.
- COR. We take the context of research in scientific inquiry seriously.
In practice, of course, we do not take the whole actual universe as our starting point but begin by constructing concrete examples of systems, say, a system defined by its state space and we try to determine what sorts of conditions must satisfy in order for to possess any sort of representation at all of its own structure.
Questions like that have been thoroughly investigated in the case of axiom systems and computational systems, where people speak of a system having a “reflective property”, but there is room to do a lot more work on reflection in full-fledged semiotic systems, those built on triadic sign relations and taking full advantage of their power.