[] Re: Pragmata = Objects?

JA = Jon Awbrey
GR = Gary Richmond

Gary,

A few points may need expansion before we return to the main line ...

JA: That first diagram was drawn from Aristotle's text, with an eye, of course,
     to seeing what overarching continuities could be seen with Peirce's account.
     I've probably mentioned before that there is only so much that can be shown
     in a diagram like that.

JA: If we understand the lone triple that's singled out in the picture as a "prototypical"
     or a "representative" triple sampled from a genuine sign relation, which is in general
     a much larger collection of similar triples, then we can probably avoid being misled
     too far.  But we have to keep the extended aspect of a sign relation constantly in
     mind, since many of its properties do not descend to the level of single triples,
     that is, to the level of elemental sign relations of the form (o, s, i).

JA: So let's pause here and see if we are congruent incidental to that point.

GR: In one sense I'd say that we most certainly are "congruent incidental"
     to the point that we need to see the single triple sign relation as an
     abstraction, a formal representation taken from "the extended aspect of
     a sign relation."  We also agree that in even the simplest actual semiosis
     that "a much larger collection" of triple relations is involved than that
     given in the single triple of your diagram 1.

I should fill in some terminology at this point.  I'm using terms like "elemental sign relation"
or "elementary sign relation" to refer to a single element of a given sign relation L, that is,
a single triple of the form (o, s, i) in L.  In the same vein, I'm using terms like "extension"
or "extended aspect" to indicate the set-theoretic extension of whatever concept is involved
in L, that is, the set of all triples (o, s, i) in the sign relation L.

GR: However, your diagram 2, having exactly the same structure as diagram 1,
     but representing now not some abstraction but a real complexus of semioses
     (as someone's actual experience) is intended to convey that "much larger
     collection" of triple relations, is it not?  Although I think it may be
     a bit overloaded or overcharged (on your principle that "there is only
     so much that can be shown in a diagram like that"), yet the (processual)
     relations you analyze are clear enough -- at least to anyone steeped in
     triadic semiotic.

The second diagram was drawn to illustrate Dewey's "Rainy Day Inquiry",
and its extra complications are due to the fact that this exemplifies
a process of complex inference that develops over several moments of
action, experience, and reflective thought.  I was very dissatisfied
with my grasp of the relation between signs and inquiry at that time,
and the desired understanding is still a work in progress, but I have
devoted some energies in the mean time trying to improve my account of
how the pieces, familiar and speculative, fit into the yet unknown puzzle.

Jon

-- 

inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
knol: http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/3fkwvf69kridz/1
mof: http://mathoverflow.net/users/1636/jon-awbrey
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]