Relation Theory • Discussion 1

Re: CyberneticsArthur Phillips

Responding to what I’ll abductively interpret as a plea for relevance from the cybernetic galley, let me give a quick review of where we are in this many-oared expedition.

Our reading of Ashby (see Survey of Cybernetics) veered off at a point (Selection 13) where we needed to look more closely at the structures of triadic relations and the ways in which pragmatic, semiotic, and systems thinking all have triadic relations at their core.  As often happens, one side-trip leads to another, but I think our excursions through sign relations, triadic relations, and relations in general will prove useful in the long run as we get back to the question of how signs bear information of use to intelligent systems with a capacity for methodical scientific inquiry.

cc: CyberneticsOntolog ForumPeirce ListStructural ModelingSystems Science

This entry was posted in Algebra, Algebra of Logic, C.S. Peirce, Category Theory, Combinatorics, Discrete Mathematics, Duality, Dyadic Relations, Foundations of Mathematics, Graph Theory, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Set Theory, Sign Relational Manifolds, Sign Relations, Surveys, Triadic Relations, Triadicity, Type Theory and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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.