## Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Relation Theory • Discussion 5

Re: Cybernetics • Cliff Joslyn Re: Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Relation Theory • Discussion (3) (4) Dear Cliff, I’m still collecting my wits from the mind-numbing events of the past two weeks so I’ll copy your last remarks here and … Continue reading

## Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Relation Theory • Discussion 4

Re: Previous Post Re: Cybernetics • Cliff Joslyn Dear Cliff, Many thanks for your thoughtful reply.  I copied a transcript to my blog to take up first thing next year.  Here’s hoping we all have a better one! Regards, Jon CJ: … Continue reading

## Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Relation Theory • Discussion 3

Re: Peirce List • Helmut Raulien HR: As Peircean semiotics is a three-valued logic, I think it bears relevance for the discussion about multiple-valued logic. Dear Helmut, The distinction between “k-adic” (involving a span of k dimensions) and “k-tomic” (involving … Continue reading

## Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Relation Theory • Discussion 2

Re: Peirce List • Edwina Taborsky Dear Edwina, Analytic frameworks, our various theories of categories, sets, sorts, and types, have their uses but they tend to become à priori, autonomous, top-down, and top-heavy unless they are supported by a robust population … Continue reading

## Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Relation Theory • Discussion 1

Re: Peirce List • Edwina Taborsky ET: I particularly like your comment that “signhood is a role in a triadic relation, a role that a thing bears or plays in a given context of relationships — it is not an … Continue reading

## Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Relation Theory • 1

To understand how signs work in Peirce’s theory of triadic sign relations, or “semiotics”, we have to understand, in order of increasing generality, sign relations, triadic relations, and relations in general, each as conceived in Peirce’s logic of relative terms … Continue reading

## Sign Relations • Discussion 10

Anthesis • Definition • Signs and Inquiry • Examples Dyadic Aspects • Denotation • Connotation • Ennotation Semiotic Equivalence Relations • (1) • (2) Re: Cybernetics • Klaus Krippendorff • Bernard Scott Re: Ontolog • Mihai Nadin • John Sowa … Continue reading

## Sign Relations • Discussion 9

Re: Sign Relations • Ennotation Re: Peirce List • Helmut Raulien Dear Helmut, Thanks for your comments.  They prompt me to say a little more about the mathematical character of the sign relational models I’m using. Peirce without mathematics is … Continue reading

## Sign Relations • Semiotic Equivalence Relations 2

A few items of notation are useful in discussing equivalence relations in general and semiotic equivalence relations in particular. In general, if is an equivalence relation on a set then every element of belongs to a unique equivalence class under … Continue reading

## Sign Relations • Discussion 8

Re: Sign Relations • Ennotation Re: Peirce List • Helmut Raulien Dear Helmut, The important thing now is to extend our perspective beyond one sign at a time and one object, sign, interpretant at a time to comprehending a sign … Continue reading