Tag Archives: Objective Frameworks

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 … Continue reading →

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 … Continue reading →

Re: Peirce List • Jerry Chandler It is above all important to understand that Peirce’s concept of a sign relation is defined at a higher order of abstraction than any notion of causal or temporal order. A sign relation is … Continue reading →

Re: Peirce List • Kirsti Määttänen One of the chief advantages of Peirce’s systems of logical graphs, entitative and existential, is the way they escape the bounds of 1‑dimensional syntax and thus make it clear that many constraints of order imposed … Continue reading →

Re: Peirce List • Gary Fuhrman Peirce’s existential graphs are a general calculus for expressing the same subject matter as his logic of relative terms and thus they serve to represent the structures of many‑place relations.  Cast at that level … Continue reading →

Re: Peirce List • Jon Awbrey • John Collier JA: Questions about the meaning of the “central hub” in the “three‑spoked” picture of an elementary sign relation have often come up.  The central “spot”, as Peirce called it in his … Continue reading →

Re: FB | Systems Sciences • Esteban Trev ET: What is the difference between sign and symbol? In Peirce’s usage, “sign” is the generic term, covering all species or types of signs.  Signs are “symbolic” to the extent they mean … Continue reading →

Re: Peirce List • Jerry Chandler An elementary sign relation is an ordered triple   It is called elementary because it is one element of a sign relation where is a set of objects, is a set of signs, and … Continue reading →

Re: Peirce List • Mike Bergman • Valentine Daniel For its pertinence to the present discussion, here again is what Peirce wrote about the mathematical way of using individual or particular cases to make general hypotheses or suppositions: Mathematical Demonstration … Continue reading →

Re: Peirce List • Mike Bergman • Valentine Daniel The “triskelion” figure in the previous post shows the bare essentials of an elementary sign relation or individual triple   There’s a less skeletal figure Susan Awbrey and I used in … Continue reading →