Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Relation Theory • Discussion 6

Re: FB | Charles S. Peirce SocietyAlain Létourneau

Alain Létourneau asks if I have any thoughts on Peirce’s Rhetoric.  I venture the following.

Classically speaking, rhetoric (as distinguished from dialectic) treats forms of argument which “consider the audience” — which take the condition of the addressee into account.  But that is just what Peirce’s semiotic does in extending our theories of signs from dyadic to triadic sign relations.  We often begin our approach to Peirce’s semiotics by saying he puts the interpreter back into the relation of signs to their objects.  But even Aristotle had already done that much.  Peirce’s innovation was to apply the pragmatic maxim, clarifying the characters of interpreters in terms of their effects — their interpretants — in the flow of semiosis.

Resources

cc: Conceptual GraphsCyberneticsOntologStructural ModelingSystems Science
cc: FB | SemeioticsLaws of Form

This entry was posted in C.S. Peirce, Icon Index Symbol, Information, Inquiry Driven Systems, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Peirce, Pragmatism, Relation Theory, Semiosis, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Triadicity, Visualization and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Relation Theory • Discussion 6

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

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 )

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.