Questions Concerning Certain Faculties Claimed For Signs

Re: Peirce List (1) (2) (3) • Helmut Raulien

HR:

I guess, that a difference between Peirce’s relation theory, and his semiotics and category theory, is, that the first is about all triadic relations, and the latter only about sign relations or representational relations (the special kind of triadic relations).

My guess is that Peirce’s category theory, when taken at its full promise and broadest historical perspective, will find its place in a line of inquiry extending from Aristotle’s Categories up through category theory in its present-day mathematical sense — and then beyond in certain directions, as guided by its more peircing insight into triadicity.  In this view, category theory, the logic of relatives, and the theory of relations all work in tandem toward the same object.

But it’s true, the initial focus and inciting application of all three converging operations — Peirce’s triple drill bit — must be to the matter of signs, information, and inquiry.  Our first imperative (!) is thus to interrogate (?) the indicative (.) faculty of signs.  Our experiences of confusion, comprehension, and communication place demands on us that only competent theories of inquiry and signs can bring to a close.

Resources

• Sign Relations
• Triadic Relations
• Relation Theory
• Peirce’s Logic Of Information
• Precursors Of Category Theory
• Information = Comprehension × Extension
• Peirce’s 1870 Logic Of Relatives : The Wiki Article
• Peirce’s 1870 Logic Of Relatives : The Series Pilot

cc: Peirce List (1) (2) (3)