Sign Relations • Comment 11

Re: Peirce List DiscussionJAS

When you ask a question about what something is, you are asking a question about its ontology.  But signhood is not a matter of ontology, it is a form of relation.

Re: Peirce List DiscussionETHRNB

Here again is that budget of excerpts on Determination, mostly Peirce with a few others before and after his time, all of which I collected back when I was turning my hand to the cybernetic and intelligent systems engineering prospects of Peirce’s theories of information, inquiry, and signs.

Contemporary conceptions of determination and determinacy in mathematics, physics, computer science, and engineering are covered by the concept of constraint and generalize beyond absolute determinism to degrees and measures of determination, ranging from none at all to totality.

This entry was posted in C.S. Peirce, Inquiry, Logic of Relatives, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Sign Relations • Comment 11

  1. Pingback: Survey of Pragmatic Semiotic Information • 4 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

  2. Pingback: Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 1 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

  3. Pingback: Survey of Pragmatic Semiotic Information • 5 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.