Tag Archives: Sign Relations

Sign Relational Manifolds • 3

Posted on October 23, 2012 by Jon Awbrey

I’m not sure when it was I first noticed the relationship between manifolds and semiotics but I distinctly recall the passage in Serge Lang’s Differential and Riemannian Manifolds which brought the triadic character of tangent vectors into high relief.  I … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Cybernetics, Differential Geometry, Differential Logic, Geometry, Intentionality, Logic, Manifolds, Mathematics, Riemann, Semiotics, Sign Relational Manifolds, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sign Relational Manifolds • 2

Posted on October 22, 2012 by Jon Awbrey

A sense of how manifolds are applied in practice may be gleaned from the set of excerpts linked below, from Doolin and Martin (1990), Introduction to Differential Geometry for Engineers, which I used in discussing differentiable manifolds with other participants … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Cybernetics, Differential Geometry, Differential Logic, Geometry, Interoperability, Logic, Manifolds, Mathematics, Riemann, Semiotics, Sign Relational Manifolds, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sign Relational Manifolds • 1

Posted on October 22, 2012 by Jon Awbrey

Riemann’s concept of a manifold, especially as later developed, bears a close relationship to Peirce’s concept of a sign relation. I will have to wait for my present train of thought to stop at a station before I can hop … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Cybernetics, Differential Geometry, Differential Logic, Geometry, Interoperability, Logic, Manifolds, Mathematics, Riemann, Semiotics, Sign Relational Manifolds, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Higher Order Sign Relations • 1

Posted on August 1, 2012 by Jon Awbrey

When interpreters reflect on their use of signs they require an appropriate technical language in which to pursue their reflections.  They need signs referring to sign relations, signs referring to elements and components of sign relations, and signs referring to … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Higher Order Sign Relations, Inquiry, Inquiry Into Inquiry, Logic, Mathematics, Recursion, Reflection, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Type Theory | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Peircean Semiotics and Triadic Sign Relations • 2

Posted on June 27, 2012 by Jon Awbrey

When I returned to graduate school for the third time around, this time in systems engineering, I had in mind integrating my long‑standing projects investigating the dynamics of information, inquiry, learning, and reasoning, viewing each as a process whose trajectory evolves … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Inquiry, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Peircean Semiotics and Triadic Sign Relations • 1

Posted on June 27, 2012 by Jon Awbrey

As a “guide for the perplexed”, at least when it comes to semiotics, I’ll use this thread to collect a budget of resources I think have served to clarify the topic in the past. By way of a first offering, … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Inquiry, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

C.S. Peirce • On the Definition of Logic

Posted on June 1, 2012 by Jon Awbrey

Selections from C.S. Peirce, “Carnegie Application” (1902) No. 12.  On the Definition of Logic Logic will here be defined as formal semiotic.  A definition of a sign will be given which no more refers to human thought than does the … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Inquiry, Logic, Mathematics, Peirce, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Sources, Triadic Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 35 Comments

Paradisaical Logic and the After Math

Posted on April 9, 2012 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Peter Cameron • Cultures, Tribes, or Just an Illusion? Re: Peirce List • (1) (2) (3) (4) Not too coincidentally with the mention of Peirce’s existential graphs, a tangent of discussion elsewhere brought to mind an old favorite passage … Continue reading →

Posted in Amphecks, C.S. Peirce, Critical Thinking, Inquiry, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Logical Graphs, Logical Reflexion, Mathematics, Peirce, Relation Theory, Second Intentions, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Truth Theory, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

C.S. Peirce • Relatives of Second Intention

Posted on April 7, 2012 by Jon Awbrey

Selections from C.S. Peirce, “The Logic of Relatives”, CP 3.456–552 488.   The general method of graphical representation of propositions has now been given in all its essential elements, except, of course, that we have not, as yet, studied any truths … Continue reading →

Posted in Abstraction, Amphecks, C.S. Peirce, Cognition, Experience, Inquiry, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Logical Graphs, Logical Reflexion, Mathematics, Peirce, Relation Theory, Second Intentions, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Truth Theory | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

C.S. Peirce • The Reality of Thirdness

Posted on March 16, 2012 by Jon Awbrey

Selections from C.S. Peirce, “Lowell Lectures of 1903”, CP 1.343–349 343.   We may say that the bulk of what is actually done consists of Secondness — or better, Secondness is the predominant character of what has been done.  The immediate … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Comprehension, Inquiry, Intension, Intention, Intentionality, Logic, Meaning, Peirce, Peirce's Categories, Pragmatic Cosmos, Purpose, Reality, References, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Sources, Thirdness, Triadic Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment