Tag Archives: Relation Theory

Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Relations • 2

Posted on June 19, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

I always have trouble deciding whether to start with the genus and drive down to the species or else to start with concrete examples and follow Sisyphus up Mt. Abstraction. Soon after I made my 3rd try at grad school, this … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Icon Index Symbol, Knowledge Representation, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Ontology, Peirce, Pragmatism, Relation Theory, Semiosis, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Triadicity | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 16 Comments

Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Relations • 1

Posted on May 9, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

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

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Icon Index Symbol, Knowledge Representation, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Ontology, Peirce, Pragmatism, Relation Theory, Semiosis, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Triadicity | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 16 Comments

Definition and Determination • 17

Posted on April 23, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Ontolog Forum • Richard McCullough RM:  We clearly have some differences in the “definition” of “definition”. I suppose it all depends on the sorts of things one wants to define, something we might call the context of application.  I am … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Comprehension, Constraint, Definition, Determination, Extension, Form, Geometry, Graph Theory, Group Theory, Indication, Information = Comprehension × Extension, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Intension, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Topology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Definition and Determination • 16

Posted on April 22, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Ontolog Forum • Richard McCullough RM:  What is your view of definitions? A recurring question, always worth some thought, so I added my earlier comment to a long-running series on my blog concerned with Definition and Determination. Survey of Definition … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Comprehension, Constraint, Definition, Determination, Extension, Form, Geometry, Graph Theory, Group Theory, Indication, Information = Comprehension × Extension, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Intension, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Topology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Definition and Determination • 15

Posted on April 21, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Ontolog Forum • Richard McCullough In some early math course I learned a fourfold scheme of Primitives (undefined terms), Definitions, Axioms, and Inference Rules.  But later excursions tended to run the axioms and definitions together, speaking for example of … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Comprehension, Constraint, Definition, Determination, Extension, Form, Geometry, Graph Theory, Group Theory, Indication, Information = Comprehension × Extension, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Intension, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Topology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Sign Relations • Comment 12

Posted on February 17, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Ontolog Discussion • HP In the Peirce universe “the role that human institutions play in establishing grounding and associated frames of reference and standards” (Hans Polzer) is articulated by reference to “communities of inquiry” and “communities of interpretation”.  Invoking … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Inquiry, Logic of Relatives, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , | 16 Comments

Sign Relations • Comment 11

Posted on February 14, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

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 →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Inquiry, Logic of Relatives, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , | 15 Comments

Sign Relations • Comment 10

Posted on February 9, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

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 →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Inquiry, Logic of Relatives, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , | 16 Comments

Sign Relations • Comment 9

Posted on January 18, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

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 →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Inquiry, Logic of Relatives, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , | 16 Comments

Sign Relations • Comment 8

Posted on January 17, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

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

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Inquiry, Logic of Relatives, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , | 16 Comments