Tag Archives: Inquiry

Re: Peirce List • Jon Alan Schmidt When you ask a question about what something is, you are asking a question about its ontology.  But signhood is not a matter of ontology, it is a form of relation. Re: Peirce … Continue reading →

Re: Peirce List • John Sowa Three-Headed Dogs and Triadic Sign Relations Peirce’s “Sop to Cerberus” got tossed about quite a bit in our discussions across the Web this millennium.  Here’s a record of one occasion from the days when … Continue reading →

Re: Facebook Discussion • CJ Yes, that’s the idea. Descriptive semiotics needs formal models for describing any sort of sign-using conduct, whether conducted by humans, life-forms, machines, or sign-using systems in general. Normative semiotics, also known as logic, inquires into … Continue reading →

Re: Semiotic Triangle • JC Peirce being prickly as usual his distinctions all tend toward tri-stinctions and on this field he wields his trident:  Tone, Token, Type. Here’s a link to a few pertinent passages: Tone, Token, Type

Re: Semiotic Triangle • Francesco Bellucci I am still looking for a way to build a bridge between the different senses of complete and incomplete being used in this discussion but while that bridge is under construction it may help … Continue reading →

Re: Semiotic Triangle • JA • FB • JA • FB Two different senses of completeness and incompleteness in regard to signs arose in discussion at this point, as illustrated by the following exchange: FB: “Socrates” for Peirce would be … Continue reading →

Note. The following links afford a review of the discussion up to this point. Re: Semiotic Triangle • JC • JA • JA • JC • JA • JA • JC • JA • FB • JA • JA Peirce … Continue reading →

Re: John Corcoran • Semiotic Triangle • My Comment The following passage is very instructive on several points, illuminating especially the relationship between interpreters (sign‑using agents) and interpretant signs. We are all, then, sufficiently familiar with the fact that many … Continue reading →

Re: Semiotic Triangle • John Corcoran A sign relation is a formal structure that satisfies a very general definition, on the same order of generality as a mathematical group or geometry.  So any consideration of what a particular sign relation … Continue reading →