Inquiry Into Inquiry

Interpreter and Interpretant • Selection 2

Posted on January 28, 2024 by Jon Awbrey

In the next passage up for review the hypostatic abstraction of a person to conduct the movement of signs is described by Peirce as a Sop to Cerberus, a rhetorical gambit set to side‑step a persistent difficulty of exposition.

It is clearly indispensable to start with an accurate and broad analysis of the nature of a Sign. I define a Sign as anything which is so determined by something else, called its Object, and so determines an effect upon a person, which effect I call its Interpretant, that the latter is thereby mediately determined by the former. My insertion of “upon a person” is a sop to Cerberus, because I despair of making my own broader conception understood. (Peirce 1908, Selected Writings, p. 404).

Reference

Peirce, C.S. (1908), “Letters to Lady Welby”, Chapter 24, pp. 380–432 in Charles S. Peirce : Selected Writings (Values in a Universe of Chance), Edited with Introduction and Notes by Philip P. Wiener, Dover Publications, New York, NY, 1966.

Resource

Hypostatic Abstraction

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

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Diagrammatic Reasoning, Interpretive Frameworks, Logic, Logical Graphs, Objective Frameworks, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Systems of Interpretation, Triadic Relations, Visualization | Tagged C.S. Peirce, Diagrammatic Reasoning, Interpretive Frameworks, Logic, Logical Graphs, Objective Frameworks, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Systems of Interpretation, Triadic Relations, Visualization | 2 Comments

Interpreter and Interpretant • Selection 1

Posted on January 27, 2024 by Jon Awbrey

Questions about the relationship between “interpreters” and “interpretants” in Peircean semiotics have broken out again. To put the matter as pointedly as possible — because I know someone or other is bound to — “In a theory of three‑place relations among objects, signs, and interpretant signs, where indeed is there any place for the interpretive agent?”

By way of getting my feet on the ground with the issue I’ll do what has always helped me before and review a small set of basic texts. Here is the first.

$\text{Figure 1. The Sign Relation in Aristotle}$

Words spoken are symbols or signs (symbola) of affections or impressions (pathemata) of the soul (psyche); written words are the signs of words spoken. As writing, so also is speech not the same for all races of men. But the mental affections themselves, of which these words are primarily signs (semeia), are the same for the whole of mankind, as are also the objects (pragmata) of which those affections are representations or likenesses, images, copies (homoiomata). (Aristotle, De Interp. i. 16^a4).

References

Aristotle, “On Interpretation” (De Interp.), Harold P. Cooke (trans.), pp. 111–179 in Aristotle, Volume 1, Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann, London, UK, 1938.
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).

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

Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 5

Posted on January 26, 2024 by Jon Awbrey

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

Sources

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

Topics

Interpreter and Interpretant

Selections • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4) • (5) • (6) • (7) • (8) • (9) • (10)
Discussions • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4)

Tone, Token, Type

Discussions • (1)

Blog Series

Semeiotic

Peircean Semiotics and Triadic Sign Relations • (1) • (2) • (3)

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)

Higher Order Sign Relations • (1)

Discussions • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4) • (5)

Blog Dialogs

Signs Of Signs • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4)

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)

Excursions

Semiositis • (1)
Signspiel • (1)
Skiourosemiosis • (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

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Inquiry, Logic, Mathematics, Relation Theory, Semiosis, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadicity | Tagged C.S. Peirce, Inquiry, Logic, Mathematics, Relation Theory, Semiosis, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadicity | 29 Comments

Survey of Cybernetics • 4

Posted on January 25, 2024 by Jon Awbrey

Again, in a ship, if a man were at liberty to do what he chose, but were devoid of mind and excellence in navigation (αρετης κυβερνητικης), do you perceive what must happen to him and his fellow sailors?

— Plato • Alcibiades • 135 A

This is a Survey of blog posts relating to Cybernetics. It includes the selections from Ashby’s Introduction and the comment on them I’ve posted so far, plus two series of reflections on the governance of social systems in light of cybernetic and semiotic principles.

Anthem

Ouch❢

Ashby’s Introduction to Cybernetics

Chapter 10 • Regulation In Biological Systems

Selections • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4) • (5) • (6) • (7) • (8) • (9) • (10)

Discussions • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4)

Chapter 11 • Requisite Variety

Selections • (11) • (12) • (13)

Blog Series

Basal Ingredients Of Society (BIOS)

Prologue • Prescription

Comments • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4) • (5) • (6) • (7)

Theory and Therapy of Representations • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4) • (5)

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

Posted in Abduction, C.S. Peirce, Communication, Control, Cybernetics, Deduction, Determination, Discovery, Doubt, Epistemology, Fixation of Belief, Induction, Information, Information = Comprehension × Extension, Information Theory, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Inquiry Into Inquiry, Interpretation, Invention, Knowledge, Learning Theory, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Logic of Science, Mathematics, Peirce, Philosophy, Philosophy of Science, Pragmatic Information, Probable Reasoning, Process Thinking, Relation Theory, Scientific Inquiry, Scientific Method, Semeiosis, Semiosis, Semiotic Information, Semiotics, Sign Relational Manifolds, Sign Relations, Surveys, Triadic Relations, Uncertainty | Tagged Abduction, C.S. Peirce, Communication, Control, Cybernetics, Deduction, Determination, Discovery, Doubt, Epistemology, Fixation of Belief, Induction, Information, Information = Comprehension × Extension, Information Theory, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Inquiry Into Inquiry, Interpretation, Invention, Knowledge, Learning Theory, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Logic of Science, Mathematics, Peirce, Philosophy, Philosophy of Science, Pragmatic Information, Probable Reasoning, Process Thinking, Relation Theory, Scientific Inquiry, Scientific Method, Semeiosis, Semiosis, Semiotic Information, Semiotics, Sign Relational Manifolds, Sign Relations, Surveys, Triadic Relations, Uncertainty | 13 Comments

Survey of Definition and Determination • 3

Posted on January 24, 2024 by Jon Awbrey

In the early 1990s, “in the middle of life’s journey” as the saying goes, I returned to grad school in a systems engineering program with the idea of taking a more systems-theoretic approach to my development of Peircean themes, from signs and scientific inquiry to logic and information theory.

Two of the first questions calling for fresh examination were the closely related concepts of definition and determination, not only as Peirce used them in his logic and semiotics but as researchers in areas as diverse as computer science, cybernetics, physics, and systems science would find themselves forced to reconsider the concepts in later years. That led me to collect a sample of texts where Peirce and a few other writers discuss the issues of definition and determination. There are copies of those selections at the following sites.

Collection Of Source Materials

What follows is a Survey of blog and wiki posts on Definition and Determination, with a focus on the part they play in Peirce’s interlinked theories of signs, information, and inquiry. In classical logical traditions the concepts of definition and determination are closely related and their bond acquires all the more force when we view the overarching concept of constraint from an information-theoretic point of view, as Peirce did beginning in the 1860s.

Blog Dialogs

Definition and Determination • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4) • (5) • (6) • (7) • (8) • (9) • (10) • (11) • (12) • (13) • (14) • (15) • (16) • (17) • (18) • (19) • (20) • (21) • (22)

Readings On Determination • (1)

Discussion • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4)

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

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Comprehension, Constraint, Definition, Determination, Extension, Form, Indication, Information = Comprehension × Extension, Inquiry, Logic, Mathematics, Scientific Method, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Structure | Tagged C.S. Peirce, Comprehension, Constraint, Definition, Determination, Extension, Form, Indication, Information = Comprehension × Extension, Inquiry, Logic, Mathematics, Scientific Method, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Structure | Leave a comment

The object of reasoning is to find out …

Posted on January 23, 2024 by Jon Awbrey

No longer wondered what I would do in life but defined my object.
— C.S. Peirce (1861), “My Life, written for the Class-Book”, (CE 1, 3)

The object of reasoning is to find out, from the consideration of what we already know, something else which we do not know.
— C.S. Peirce (1877), “The Fixation of Belief”, (CP 5.365)

If the object of an investigation is to find out something we do not know then the clues we discover along the way are the signs which determine that object.

People will continue to be confused about determination so long as they can think of no other forms but analytic-behaviorist-causal-dyadic-temporal, object-as-stimulus, sign-as-response varieties. It’s true ordinary language biases us toward billiard‑ball styles of dyadic determination but there are triadic forms of constraint, determination, and interaction not captured by S‑R chains of that order.

Pragmatic objects of signs and concepts are anything we talk or think about and semiosis does not conduct its transactions within the bounds of object as cue, sign as cue ball, and interpretants as solids, stripes, and pockets.

References

Peirce, C.S. (1859–1861), “My Life, written for the Class-Book”, pp. 1–3 in Writings of Charles S. Peirce : A Chronological Edition, Volume 1, 1857–1866, Peirce Edition Project, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, 1982.
Peirce, C.S. (1877), “The Fixation Of Belief”, Popular Science Monthly 12 (Nov 1877), pp. 1–15. Reprinted in Collected Papers, CP 5.358–387. Online.

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

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Determination, Dyadic Relations, Fixation of Belief, Inference, Inquiry, Intention, Intentional Contexts, Intentional Objects, Logic, Objects Objectives Objectivity, Pragmata, Pragmatism, Reasoning, Scientific Inquiry, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Triadicity | Tagged C.S. Peirce, Determination, Dyadic Relations, Fixation of Belief, Inference, Inquiry, Intention, Intentional Contexts, Intentional Objects, Logic, Objects Objectives Objectivity, Pragmata, Pragmatism, Reasoning, Scientific Inquiry, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Triadicity | 6 Comments

Differential Propositional Calculus • Discussion 9

Posted on January 21, 2024 by Jon Awbrey

Consider what effects that might conceivably have practical bearings you conceive the objects of your conception to have. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object.

— C.S. Peirce • The Maxim of Pragmatism

Re: Facebook Discussion • Tim Browning

TB:

Makes me wonder if all that is the case, i.e. the universe, is the existence of objects (materialism) or information (idealism).

“Objects of your conception” seems to imply a transcendent perspective that can distinguish between concept and object. Am I overthinking this?

Hi Tim,

It helps to read “object” in a fuller sense than we often do in billiard‑ball philosophies, as a lot gets lost in the translation from the Greek “pragma” from which pragmatism naturally takes its cue. For a sample of that fuller sense see the following lexicon entry.

πρᾶγμα • Liddell, H.G., and Scott, R. (1925), A Greek-English Lexicon (1940 edition),
Perseus Digital Library.

Resources

cc: FB | Differential Logic • Laws of Form • Mathstodon • Academia.edu
cc: Conceptual Graphs • Cybernetics • Structural Modeling • Systems Science

Posted in Amphecks, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Category Theory, Change, Computational Complexity, Cybernetics, Differential Analytic Turing Automata, Differential Calculus, Differential Logic, Discrete Dynamics, Dynamical Systems, Equational Inference, Functional Logic, Gradient Descent, Graph Theory, Group Theory, Hologrammautomaton, Indicator Functions, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematical Models, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Painted Cacti, Peirce, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Time, Visualization | Tagged Amphecks, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Category Theory, Change, Computational Complexity, Cybernetics, Differential Analytic Turing Automata, Differential Calculus, Differential Logic, Discrete Dynamics, Dynamical Systems, Equational Inference, Functional Logic, Gradient Descent, Graph Theory, Group Theory, Hologrammautomaton, Indicator Functions, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematical Models, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Painted Cacti, Peirce, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Time, Visualization | 4 Comments

In the Way of Inquiry • Discussion 1

Posted on January 15, 2024 by Jon Awbrey

Re: In the Way of Inquiry • Justification Trap
Re: Academia.edu • Bhupinder Singh Anand

BSA:: Thanks for highlighting what I perceive as some challenging issues in the foundations of what we seek to term as “Knowledge” and “Truth”. …

Hi Bhupinder,

Just by way of venturing a few links between different schools of thought, a very rough hint of the pragmatic approach to truth and knowledge can be found in the following fork of a Wikipedia article I worked on many years ago.

Pragmatic Theory Of Truth, which begins as follows …

Pragmatic theory of truth refers to those accounts, definitions, and theories of the concept truth distinguishing the philosophies of pragmatism and pragmaticism. The conception of truth in question varies along lines reflecting the influence of several thinkers, initially and notably, Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey, but a number of common features can be identified. The most characteristic features are (1) a reliance on the pragmatic maxim as a means of clarifying the meanings of difficult concepts, truth in particular, and (2) an emphasis on the fact that the product variously branded as belief, certainty, knowledge, or truth is the result of a process, namely, inquiry. [1]

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

Posted in Animata, C.S. Peirce, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Inquiry Into Inquiry, Intelligent Systems, Semiotics | Tagged Animata, C.S. Peirce, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Inquiry Into Inquiry, Intelligent Systems, Semiotics | 4 Comments

Riffs and Rotes • Happy New Year 2024

Posted on January 2, 2024 by Jon Awbrey

$\text{Let} ~ p_n = \text{the} ~ n^\text{th} ~ \text{prime}.$

$\text{Then} ~ 2024 = 8 \cdot 11 \cdot 23 = p_{1}^{3} p_{5} p_{9} = p_{1}^{p_2} p_{p_3} p_{p_2^2} = p_{1}^{p_{p_1}} p_{p_{p_2}} p_{p_{p_1}^{p_1}} = p_{1}^{p_{p_1}} p_{p_{p_{p_1}}} p_{p_{p_1}^{p_1}}$

No information is lost by dropping the terminal 1s. Thus we may write the following form.

$2024 = p^{p_p} p_{p_{p_p}} p_{p_p^p}$

The article referenced below tells how forms like these correspond to a family of digraphs called riffs and a family of graphs called rotes. The riff and rote for $2024$ are shown in the next two Figures.

Riff 2024

Rote 2024

Reference

Riffs and Rotes

cc: FB | Riffs and Rotes • Laws of Form • Ma^thstodon • Academia.edu • SeqFan
cc: Conceptual Graphs • Cybernetics • Structural Modeling • Systems Science

Posted in Algebra, Combinatorics, Graph Theory, Group Theory, Logic, Mathematics, Number Theory, Riffs and Rotes | Tagged Algebra, Combinatorics, Graph Theory, Group Theory, Logic, Mathematics, Number Theory, Riffs and Rotes | 1 Comment

Differential Propositional Calculus • 37

Posted on January 1, 2024 by Jon Awbrey

Foreshadowing Transformations • Extensions and Projections of Discourse

And, despite the care which she took to look behind her at every moment, she failed to see a shadow which followed her like her own shadow, which stopped when she stopped, which started again when she did, and which made no more noise than a well-conducted shadow should.

— Gaston Leroux • The Phantom of the Opera

Many times in our discussion we have occasion to place one universe of discourse in the context of a larger universe of discourse. An embedding of the type $[\mathcal{X}] \to [\mathcal{Y}]$ is implied any time we make use of one basis $\mathcal{X}$ which happens to be included in another basis $\mathcal{Y}.$ When discussing differential relations we usually have in mind the extended alphabet $\mathfrak{Y}$ has a special construction or a specific lexical relation with respect to the initial alphabet $\mathfrak{X},$ one which is marked by characteristic types of accents, indices, or inflected forms.

Resources

cc: FB | Differential Logic • Laws of Form • Mathstodon • Academia.edu
cc: Conceptual Graphs (1) (2) • Cybernetics • Structural Modeling • Systems Science

	Survey of Semiotics,… on Sign Relations • Graphical…
	Sign Relations • Gra… on Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis,…
	Survey of Semiotics,… on Sign Relations • Graphical…
	Sign Relations • Gra… on Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis,…
	Jon Awbrey on Sign Relations • Definiti…
	Jon Awbrey on Sign Relations • Definiti…
	Jon Awbrey on Sign Relations • Definiti…
	Survey of Semiotics,… on Sign Relations • Semiotic Equi…
	Survey of Semiotics,… on Sign Relations • Semiotic Equi…
	Sign Relations • Sem… on Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis,…

Reference

Resource

Share this:

References

Share this:

Elements

Sources

Topics

Blog Series

Blog Dialogs

Excursions

References

Share this:

Anthem

Ashby’s Introduction to Cybernetics

Blog Series

Share this:

Blog Dialogs

Share this:

References

Share this:

Resources

Share this:

Share this:

Riff 2024

Rote 2024

Reference

Share this:

Foreshadowing Transformations • Extensions and Projections of Discourse

Resources

Share this:

Elsewhere

Blogroll

Follow Blog via Email

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Blog Stats

Categories

Logic, Mathematics, Philosophy

Current Events

Meta