Tag Archives: Semiosis

Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • Discussion 4

Posted on November 7, 2019 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • Discussion 2 It’s a common mistake to confound infinite with unbounded.  A process can continue without end and still be “bounded in a nutshell”.  So a sign process can pass from sign to interpretant … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Cybernetics, Logic, Peirce, Pragmatism, Relation Theory, Semiosis, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 13 Comments

Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • Discussion 3

Posted on October 30, 2019 by Jon Awbrey

Questions about the use of “semiotic triangles” and “semiotic triskelia” to represent triadic sign relations have come up again, as they often do in the wider world, prompting me to revisit an earlier comment on the subject and to tri, … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Cybernetics, Logic, Peirce, Pragmatism, Relation Theory, Semiosis, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 1

Posted on October 29, 2019 by Jon Awbrey

This 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 … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Logic, Mathematics, Peirce, Pragmatism, Relation Theory, Semiosis, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 15 Comments

Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • Discussion 2

Posted on October 26, 2019 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Richard Coyne • Recursion Again It’s a common mistake to confound infinite with unbounded.  A process can continue without end and still be “bounded in a nutshell”.  So a sign process can pass from sign to interpretant sign to … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Cybernetics, Logic, Peirce, Pragmatism, Relation Theory, Semiosis, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 18 Comments

The Difference That Makes A Difference That Peirce Makes • 25

Posted on October 13, 2019 by Jon Awbrey

I’ve been detecting something approaching a mini-zeitgeist lately.  Ideas and issues popping up in recent discussions and readings keep reminding me of themes I first encountered in Peirce’s early work, especially the Lectures on the Logic of Science (1865–1866) and … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Fixation of Belief, Formal Systems, Information, Inquiry, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Logic of Science, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Paradigms, Pragmatic Maxim, Pragmatism, Relation Theory, Semiosis, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Triadicity, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • Discussion 1

Posted on April 29, 2019 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Semiotic Triangle • John Corcoran Concepts for Peirce are mental symbols, so they fall under the general designation of signs.  For triadic sign relations in general, then, we are dealing with a triadic relation among (1) objects of signs, … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Category Theory, Logic, Relation Theory, Semiosis, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , | 15 Comments

Abductive Inference, Concept Formation, Hypothesis Formation • 1

Posted on April 26, 2019 by Jon Awbrey

In pragmatic semiotics, concept formation like hypothesis formation falls under the heading of abductive inference.  A lot has been said and there’s a lot more to say about that, but things are too much in flux right now to allow … Continue reading →

Posted in Abduction, C.S. Peirce, Complexity, Concept Formation, Differential Calculus, Differential Logic, Dyadic Relations, Dynamical Systems, Dynamics, Geometry, Hypothesis Formation, Inference, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Peirce's Categories, Physics, Relation Theory, Semiosis, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Triadicity | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Signspiel • 1

Posted on April 17, 2019 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Ontolog Forum • John Sowa All sorts of players have given us all sorts of spiel about speech acts over the years but Peirce stands out from the chorus in giving us models of semiotic processes whose generation by triadic … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Cybernetics, Logic, Peirce, Pragmatism, Relation Theory, Semiosis, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Survey of Pragmatic Semiotic Information • 4

Posted on January 8, 2019 by Jon Awbrey

This is a Survey of previous blog and wiki posts on the Semiotic Theory Of Information.  All my projects are exploratory in essence but this line of inquiry is more open-ended than most.  The question is: What is information and how … Continue reading →

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 30 Comments

Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 3

Posted on December 11, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

For ease of reference, here are two variants of Peirce’s 1902 definition of a sign, which he gives in the process of defining logic. Selections from C.S. Peirce, “Carnegie Application” (1902) No. 12.  On the Definition of Logic Logic will … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Category Theory, Logic, Relation Theory, Semiosis, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , | 24 Comments