Sign Relations • Comment 12

Re: Ontolog DiscussionHP

In the Peirce universe “the role that human institutions play in establishing grounding and associated frames of reference and standards” (Hans Polzer) is articulated by reference to “communities of inquiry” and “communities of interpretation”.  Invoking communities as extended agents of inquiry and interpretation equips us with a better handle on “contexts of interpretation” and the structures involved in this array of constructs are found to be of triadic sign relations all compact.

Over the years I have found the hardest thing to convey about sign relations has been what it’s like to think and work within an extended sign relational environment.  A “setting” like that consists of a large number of individual sign-relational triples called “elementary sign relations”, each having the form (o, s, i), where o is the object, s is the sign, and i is the interpretant sign of the triple.

This means that any given sign relation L is a subset of a cartesian product O \times S \times I, where O is the object domain, S is the sign domain, and I is the interpretant sign domain of the sign relation L in view.

Taking this point of view on sign relations makes a big difference in the conjoined theories of inquiry and interpretation that develop from this point on.

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

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s