Semiotic Transformations
Re: Transformations of Logical Graphs • (4)
“I know what you mean but I say it another way” — it’s a thing I find myself saying often enough, if only under my breath, to rate an acronym for it ☞ IKWYMBISIAW ☜ and not too coincidentally it’s a rubric of relevance to many situations in semiotics where sundry manners of speaking and thinking converge, more or less, on the same patch of pragmata.
We encountered just such a situation in our exploration of the duality between entitative and existential interpretations of logical graphs. The two interpretations afford distinct but equally adequate ways of reasoning about a shared objective domain. To cut our teeth on a simple but substantial example of an object domain, we picked the space of boolean functions or propositional forms on two variables. That brought us to the following Table, highlighting the sign relation involved in switching between existential and entitative interpretations of logical graphs.
- Column 1 shows the object domain
as the set of 16 boolean functions on 2 variables.
- Column 2 shows the sign domain
as a representative set of logical graphs denoting the objects in
according to the existential interpretation.
- Column 3 shows the interpretant domain
as the same set of logical graphs denoting the objects in
according to the entitative interpretation.
Resources
- C.S. Peirce • On the Definition of Logic
- C.S. Peirce • Logic as Formal Semiotic
- Semeiotic • Sign Relations • Triadic Relations
- Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations
cc: FB | Logical Graphs • Laws of Form • Mathstodon • Academia.edu
cc: Conceptual Graphs • Cybernetics • Structural Modeling • Systems Science
Pingback: Survey of Animated Logical Graphs • 7 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Transformations of Logical Graphs • 6 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Transformations of Logical Graphs • 7 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Transformations of Logical Graphs • 8 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Transformations of Logical Graphs • 9 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Transformations of Logical Graphs • 10 | Inquiry Into Inquiry