Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Relations • 2

Re: Ontolog ForumSystems ScienceStructural Modeling

I always have trouble deciding whether to start with the genus and drive down to the species or else to start with concrete examples and follow Sisyphus up Mt. Abstraction.

Soon after I made my 3rd try at grad school, this time in Systems Engineering, I was trying to explain sign relations to my advisor and he — being the very model of a modern systems engineer — asked me to give a single simple concrete example, as simple as possible without being trivial, and this is the example I came up with:

Here’s a more compact and self-contained article that starts from scratch and covers much of the same material:

Folks already registered with any Wikipedia system site may find it convenient to use the article talk page at Wikiversity for additional discussion.

This entry was posted in C.S. Peirce, Inquiry Driven Systems, Knowledge Representation, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Ontology, Peirce, Pragmatism, Relation Theory, Semiosis, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Relations • 2

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

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