C.S. Peirce defines logic as “formal semiotic”, using formal to highlight the place of logic as a normative science, over and above the descriptive study of signs and their role in wider fields of play.  Understanding logic as Peirce understands it thus requires a companion study of semiotics, semiosis, and sign relations.

What follows is a Survey of blog and wiki resources on the theory of signs, variously known as semeiotic or semiotics, and the actions referred to as semiosis which transform signs among themselves in relation to their objects, all as based on C.S. Peirce’s concept of triadic sign relations.

Elements

• Semeiotic
• Sign Relations

Sources

• C.S. Peirce • On the Definition of Logic
• C.S. Peirce • Logic as Semiotic
• C.S. Peirce • Objective Logic

• C.S. Peirce • Algebra of Logic ∫ Philosophy of Notation • (1) • (2)
• C.S. Peirce • Algebra of Logic 1885 • Selections • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4)

Blog Series

• Semeiotic

• Semiositis • (1)

• Signspiel • (1)

• Skiourosemiosis • (1)

• Zeroth Law Of Semiotics
• Comments • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4) • (5) • (6) • (7)
• Discussions • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4)

• All Liar, No Paradox
• Comments • (1)
• Discussions • (1) • (2)

• Sign Relational Manifolds • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4) • (5)
• Discussions • (1) • (2) • (3)

• Sign Relations • Anthesis • Definition • Signs and Inquiry • Examples • Dyadic Aspects • Denotation • Connotation • Ennotation • Semiotic Equivalence Relations (1) (2)
• Comments • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4) • (5) • (6) • (7) • (8) • (9) • (10) • (11) • (12)
• Discussions • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4) • (5) • (6) • (7) • (8) • (9) • (10) • (11) • (12) • (13) • (14)

• Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • (1) • (2) • (3)
• Comments • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4)
• Discussions • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4) • (5) • (6) • (7) • (8) • (9) • (10) • (11) • (12) • (13) • (14) • (15) • (16) • (17) • (18) • (19)

• Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Relation Theory • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4)
• Discussions • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4) • (5) • (6) • (7) • (8) • (9) • (10) • (11) • (12)

• Interpreter and Interpretant
• Selections • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4)
• Discussions • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4)

• Tone, Token, Type
• Discussions • (1)

Blog Dialogs

• Higher Order Sign Relations • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4) • (5) • (6)

• Icon Index Symbol • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4) • (5) • (6) • (7) • (8) • (9) • (10) • (11) • (12) • (13) • (14) • (15) • (16) • (17) • (18) • (19) • (20)

• Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Relations • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4) • (5) • (6) • (7) • (8) • (9) • (10) • (11)

• Systems of Interpretation • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4) • (5) • (6) • (7) • (8) • (9)
• Discussions • (1)

References

• Awbrey, S.M., and Awbrey, J.L. (2001), “Conceptual Barriers to Creating Integrative Universities”, Organization : The Interdisciplinary Journal of Organization, Theory, and Society 8(2), Sage Publications, London, UK, 269–284.  Abstract.  Online.
• Awbrey, S.M., and Awbrey, J.L. (September 1999), “Organizations of Learning or Learning Organizations : The Challenge of Creating Integrative Universities for the Next Century”, Second International Conference of the Journal ‘Organization’, Re‑Organizing Knowledge, Trans‑Forming Institutions : Knowing, Knowledge, and the University in the 21st Century, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.  Online.
• Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1995), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15(1), 40–52.  Archive.  Journal.  Online (doc) (pdf).
• Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1992), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, The Eleventh International Human Science Research Conference, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan.

cc: FB | Semeiotics • Laws of Form • Ma^thstodon • Ontolog • Academia.edu
cc: Conceptual Graphs • Cybernetics • Structural Modeling • Systems Science