home.social

#logicofrelatives — Public Fediverse posts

Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #logicofrelatives, aggregated by home.social.

  1. Inquiry Into Inquiry @[email protected] ·

    Sign Relations • Signs and Inquiry

    There is a close relationship between the pragmatic theory of signs and the pragmatic theory of inquiry.  In fact, the correspondence between the two studies exhibits so many congruences and parallels it is often best to treat them as integral parts of one and the same subject.  In a very real sense, inquiry is the process by which sign relations come to be established and continue to evolve.  In other words, inquiry, “thinking” in its best sense, “is a term denoting the various ways in which things acquire significance” (Dewey, 38).

    Tracing the passage of inquiry through the medium of signs calls for an active, intricate form of cooperation between the converging modes of investigation.  Its proper character is best understood by realizing the theory of inquiry is adapted to study the developmental aspects of sign relations, a subject the theory of signs is specialized to treat from comparative and structural points of view.

    References

    • Dewey, J. (1910), How We Think, D.C. Heath, Boston, MA.  Reprinted (1991), Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY.  Online.
    • Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1995), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15(1), pp. 40–52.  Archive.  Journal.  Online (doc) (pdf).

    Resources

    cc: Academia.edu • Laws of Form • Research Gate • Syscoi
    cc: Cybernetics • Structural Modeling • Systems Science

    #CSPeirce #Connotation #Denotation #Inquiry #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #Mathematics #RelationTheory #Semiosis #SemioticEquivalenceRelations #Semiotics #SignRelations #TriadicRelations

    #cspeirce #connotation #denotation #inquiry #logic #logicofrelatives
  2. Inquiry Into Inquiry @[email protected] ·

    Sign Relations • Signs and Inquiry

    There is a close relationship between the pragmatic theory of signs and the pragmatic theory of inquiry.  In fact, the correspondence between the two studies exhibits so many congruences and parallels it is often best to treat them as integral parts of one and the same subject.  In a very real sense, inquiry is the process by which sign relations come to be established and continue to evolve.  In other words, inquiry, “thinking” in its best sense, “is a term denoting the various ways in which things acquire significance” (Dewey, 38).

    Tracing the passage of inquiry through the medium of signs calls for an active, intricate form of cooperation between the converging modes of investigation.  Its proper character is best understood by realizing the theory of inquiry is adapted to study the developmental aspects of sign relations, a subject the theory of signs is specialized to treat from comparative and structural points of view.

    References

    • Dewey, J. (1910), How We Think, D.C. Heath, Boston, MA.  Reprinted (1991), Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY.  Online.
    • Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1995), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15(1), pp. 40–52.  Archive.  Journal.  Online (doc) (pdf).

    Resources

    cc: Academia.edu • Laws of Form • Research Gate • Syscoi
    cc: Cybernetics • Structural Modeling • Systems Science

    #CSPeirce #Connotation #Denotation #Inquiry #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #Mathematics #RelationTheory #Semiosis #SemioticEquivalenceRelations #Semiotics #SignRelations #TriadicRelations

    #cspeirce #connotation #denotation #inquiry #logic #logicofrelatives
  3. Inquiry Into Inquiry @[email protected] ·

    Sign Relations • Signs and Inquiry

    There is a close relationship between the pragmatic theory of signs and the pragmatic theory of inquiry.  In fact, the correspondence between the two studies exhibits so many congruences and parallels it is often best to treat them as integral parts of one and the same subject.  In a very real sense, inquiry is the process by which sign relations come to be established and continue to evolve.  In other words, inquiry, “thinking” in its best sense, “is a term denoting the various ways in which things acquire significance” (Dewey, 38).

    Tracing the passage of inquiry through the medium of signs calls for an active, intricate form of cooperation between the converging modes of investigation.  Its proper character is best understood by realizing the theory of inquiry is adapted to study the developmental aspects of sign relations, a subject the theory of signs is specialized to treat from comparative and structural points of view.

    References

    • Dewey, J. (1910), How We Think, D.C. Heath, Boston, MA.  Reprinted (1991), Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY.  Online.
    • Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1995), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15(1), pp. 40–52.  Archive.  Journal.  Online (doc) (pdf).

    Resources

    cc: Academia.edu • Laws of Form • Research Gate • Syscoi
    cc: Cybernetics • Structural Modeling • Systems Science

    #CSPeirce #Connotation #Denotation #Inquiry #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #Mathematics #RelationTheory #Semiosis #SemioticEquivalenceRelations #Semiotics #SignRelations #TriadicRelations

    #cspeirce #connotation #denotation #inquiry #logic #logicofrelatives
  4. Inquiry Into Inquiry @[email protected] ·

    Sign Relations • Signs and Inquiry

    There is a close relationship between the pragmatic theory of signs and the pragmatic theory of inquiry.  In fact, the correspondence between the two studies exhibits so many congruences and parallels it is often best to treat them as integral parts of one and the same subject.  In a very real sense, inquiry is the process by which sign relations come to be established and continue to evolve.  In other words, inquiry, “thinking” in its best sense, “is a term denoting the various ways in which things acquire significance” (Dewey, 38).

    Tracing the passage of inquiry through the medium of signs calls for an active, intricate form of cooperation between the converging modes of investigation.  Its proper character is best understood by realizing the theory of inquiry is adapted to study the developmental aspects of sign relations, a subject the theory of signs is specialized to treat from comparative and structural points of view.

    References

    • Dewey, J. (1910), How We Think, D.C. Heath, Boston, MA.  Reprinted (1991), Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY.  Online.
    • Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1995), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15(1), pp. 40–52.  Archive.  Journal.  Online (doc) (pdf).

    Resources

    cc: Academia.edu • Laws of Form • Research Gate • Syscoi
    cc: Cybernetics • Structural Modeling • Systems Science

    #CSPeirce #Connotation #Denotation #Inquiry #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #Mathematics #RelationTheory #Semiosis #SemioticEquivalenceRelations #Semiotics #SignRelations #TriadicRelations

    #triadicrelations #signrelations #semiotics #semioticequivalencerelations #semiosis #relationtheory
  5. Inquiry Into Inquiry @[email protected] ·

    Sign Relations • Signs and Inquiry

    There is a close relationship between the pragmatic theory of signs and the pragmatic theory of inquiry.  In fact, the correspondence between the two studies exhibits so many congruences and parallels it is often best to treat them as integral parts of one and the same subject.  In a very real sense, inquiry is the process by which sign relations come to be established and continue to evolve.  In other words, inquiry, “thinking” in its best sense, “is a term denoting the various ways in which things acquire significance” (Dewey, 38).

    Tracing the passage of inquiry through the medium of signs calls for an active, intricate form of cooperation between the converging modes of investigation.  Its proper character is best understood by realizing the theory of inquiry is adapted to study the developmental aspects of sign relations, a subject the theory of signs is specialized to treat from comparative and structural points of view.

    References

    • Dewey, J. (1910), How We Think, D.C. Heath, Boston, MA.  Reprinted (1991), Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY.  Online.
    • Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1995), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15(1), pp. 40–52.  Archive.  Journal.  Online (doc) (pdf).

    Resources

    cc: Academia.edu • Laws of Form • Research Gate • Syscoi
    cc: Cybernetics • Structural Modeling • Systems Science

    #CSPeirce #Connotation #Denotation #Inquiry #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #Mathematics #RelationTheory #Semiosis #SemioticEquivalenceRelations #Semiotics #SignRelations #TriadicRelations

    #cspeirce #connotation #denotation #inquiry #logic #logicofrelatives
  6. Inquiry Into Inquiry @[email protected] ·

    Sign Relations • Definition

    One of Peirce’s clearest and most complete definitions of a sign is one he gives in the context of providing a definition for logic, and so it is informative to view it in that setting.

    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 definition of a line as the place which a particle occupies, part by part, during a lapse of time.  Namely, a sign is something, A, which brings something, B, its interpretant sign determined or created by it, into the same sort of correspondence with something, C, its object, as that in which itself stands to C.

    It is from this definition, together with a definition of “formal”, that I deduce mathematically the principles of logic.  I also make a historical review of all the definitions and conceptions of logic, and show, not merely that my definition is no novelty, but that my non‑psychological conception of logic has virtually been quite generally held, though not generally recognized.

    — C.S. Peirce, New Elements of Mathematics, vol. 4, 20–21

    In the general discussion of diverse theories of signs, the question arises whether signhood is an absolute, essential, indelible, or ontological property of a thing, or whether it is a relational, interpretive, and mutable role a thing may be said to have only within a particular context of relationships.

    Peirce’s definition of a sign defines it in relation to its objects and its interpretant signs, and thus defines signhood in relative terms, by means of a predicate with three places.  In that definition, signhood is a role in a triadic relation, a role a thing bears or plays in a determinate context of relationships — it is not an absolute or non‑relative property of a thing‑in‑itself, one it possesses independently of all relationships to other things.

    Some of the terms Peirce uses in his definition of a sign may need to be elaborated for the contemporary reader.

    • Correspondence.  From the way Peirce uses the term throughout his work, it is clear he means what he elsewhere calls a “triple correspondence”, and thus this is just another way of referring to the whole triadic sign relation itself.  In particular, his use of the term should not be taken to imply a dyadic correspondence, like the kinds of “mirror image” correspondence between realities and representations bandied about in contemporary controversies about “correspondence theories of truth”.
    • Determination.  Peirce’s concept of determination is broader in several directions than the sense of the word referring to strictly deterministic causal‑temporal processes.  First, and especially in this context, he is invoking a more general concept of determination, what is called a formal or informational determination, as in saying “two points determine a line”, rather than the more special cases of causal and temporal determinisms.  Second, he characteristically allows for what is called determination in measure, that is, an order of determinism admitting a full spectrum of more and less determined relationships.
    • Non‑psychological.  Peirce’s “non‑psychological conception of logic” must be distinguished from any variety of anti‑psychologism.  He was quite interested in matters of psychology and had much of import to say about them.  But logic and psychology operate on different planes of study even when they have occasion to view the same data, as logic is a normative science where psychology is a descriptive science, and so they have very different aims, methods, and rationales.

    Reference

    • Peirce, C.S. (1902), “Parts of Carnegie Application” (L 75), in Carolyn Eisele (ed., 1976), The New Elements of Mathematics by Charles S. Peirce, vol. 4, 13–73.  Online.

    Resources

    cc: Academia.edu • Laws of Form • Research Gate • Syscoi
    cc: Cybernetics • Structural Modeling • Systems Science

    #CSPeirce #Connotation #Denotation #Inquiry #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #Mathematics #RelationTheory #Semiosis #SemioticEquivalenceRelations #Semiotics #SignRelations #TriadicRelations

    #cspeirce #connotation #denotation #inquiry #logic #logicofrelatives
  7. Inquiry Into Inquiry @[email protected] ·

    Sign Relations • Definition

    One of Peirce’s clearest and most complete definitions of a sign is one he gives in the context of providing a definition for logic, and so it is informative to view it in that setting.

    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 definition of a line as the place which a particle occupies, part by part, during a lapse of time.  Namely, a sign is something, A, which brings something, B, its interpretant sign determined or created by it, into the same sort of correspondence with something, C, its object, as that in which itself stands to C.

    It is from this definition, together with a definition of “formal”, that I deduce mathematically the principles of logic.  I also make a historical review of all the definitions and conceptions of logic, and show, not merely that my definition is no novelty, but that my non‑psychological conception of logic has virtually been quite generally held, though not generally recognized.

    — C.S. Peirce, New Elements of Mathematics, vol. 4, 20–21

    In the general discussion of diverse theories of signs, the question arises whether signhood is an absolute, essential, indelible, or ontological property of a thing, or whether it is a relational, interpretive, and mutable role a thing may be said to have only within a particular context of relationships.

    Peirce’s definition of a sign defines it in relation to its objects and its interpretant signs, and thus defines signhood in relative terms, by means of a predicate with three places.  In that definition, signhood is a role in a triadic relation, a role a thing bears or plays in a determinate context of relationships — it is not an absolute or non‑relative property of a thing‑in‑itself, one it possesses independently of all relationships to other things.

    Some of the terms Peirce uses in his definition of a sign may need to be elaborated for the contemporary reader.

    • Correspondence.  From the way Peirce uses the term throughout his work, it is clear he means what he elsewhere calls a “triple correspondence”, and thus this is just another way of referring to the whole triadic sign relation itself.  In particular, his use of the term should not be taken to imply a dyadic correspondence, like the kinds of “mirror image” correspondence between realities and representations bandied about in contemporary controversies about “correspondence theories of truth”.
    • Determination.  Peirce’s concept of determination is broader in several directions than the sense of the word referring to strictly deterministic causal‑temporal processes.  First, and especially in this context, he is invoking a more general concept of determination, what is called a formal or informational determination, as in saying “two points determine a line”, rather than the more special cases of causal and temporal determinisms.  Second, he characteristically allows for what is called determination in measure, that is, an order of determinism admitting a full spectrum of more and less determined relationships.
    • Non‑psychological.  Peirce’s “non‑psychological conception of logic” must be distinguished from any variety of anti‑psychologism.  He was quite interested in matters of psychology and had much of import to say about them.  But logic and psychology operate on different planes of study even when they have occasion to view the same data, as logic is a normative science where psychology is a descriptive science, and so they have very different aims, methods, and rationales.

    Reference

    • Peirce, C.S. (1902), “Parts of Carnegie Application” (L 75), in Carolyn Eisele (ed., 1976), The New Elements of Mathematics by Charles S. Peirce, vol. 4, 13–73.  Online.

    Resources

    cc: Academia.edu • Laws of Form • Research Gate • Syscoi
    cc: Cybernetics • Structural Modeling • Systems Science

    #CSPeirce #Connotation #Denotation #Inquiry #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #Mathematics #RelationTheory #Semiosis #SemioticEquivalenceRelations #Semiotics #SignRelations #TriadicRelations

    #cspeirce #connotation #denotation #inquiry #logic #logicofrelatives
  8. Inquiry Into Inquiry @[email protected] ·

    Sign Relations • Definition

    One of Peirce’s clearest and most complete definitions of a sign is one he gives in the context of providing a definition for logic, and so it is informative to view it in that setting.

    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 definition of a line as the place which a particle occupies, part by part, during a lapse of time.  Namely, a sign is something, A, which brings something, B, its interpretant sign determined or created by it, into the same sort of correspondence with something, C, its object, as that in which itself stands to C.

    It is from this definition, together with a definition of “formal”, that I deduce mathematically the principles of logic.  I also make a historical review of all the definitions and conceptions of logic, and show, not merely that my definition is no novelty, but that my non‑psychological conception of logic has virtually been quite generally held, though not generally recognized.

    — C.S. Peirce, New Elements of Mathematics, vol. 4, 20–21

    In the general discussion of diverse theories of signs, the question arises whether signhood is an absolute, essential, indelible, or ontological property of a thing, or whether it is a relational, interpretive, and mutable role a thing may be said to have only within a particular context of relationships.

    Peirce’s definition of a sign defines it in relation to its objects and its interpretant signs, and thus defines signhood in relative terms, by means of a predicate with three places.  In that definition, signhood is a role in a triadic relation, a role a thing bears or plays in a determinate context of relationships — it is not an absolute or non‑relative property of a thing‑in‑itself, one it possesses independently of all relationships to other things.

    Some of the terms Peirce uses in his definition of a sign may need to be elaborated for the contemporary reader.

    • Correspondence.  From the way Peirce uses the term throughout his work, it is clear he means what he elsewhere calls a “triple correspondence”, and thus this is just another way of referring to the whole triadic sign relation itself.  In particular, his use of the term should not be taken to imply a dyadic correspondence, like the kinds of “mirror image” correspondence between realities and representations bandied about in contemporary controversies about “correspondence theories of truth”.
    • Determination.  Peirce’s concept of determination is broader in several directions than the sense of the word referring to strictly deterministic causal‑temporal processes.  First, and especially in this context, he is invoking a more general concept of determination, what is called a formal or informational determination, as in saying “two points determine a line”, rather than the more special cases of causal and temporal determinisms.  Second, he characteristically allows for what is called determination in measure, that is, an order of determinism admitting a full spectrum of more and less determined relationships.
    • Non‑psychological.  Peirce’s “non‑psychological conception of logic” must be distinguished from any variety of anti‑psychologism.  He was quite interested in matters of psychology and had much of import to say about them.  But logic and psychology operate on different planes of study even when they have occasion to view the same data, as logic is a normative science where psychology is a descriptive science, and so they have very different aims, methods, and rationales.

    Reference

    • Peirce, C.S. (1902), “Parts of Carnegie Application” (L 75), in Carolyn Eisele (ed., 1976), The New Elements of Mathematics by Charles S. Peirce, vol. 4, 13–73.  Online.

    Resources

    cc: Academia.edu • Laws of Form • Research Gate • Syscoi
    cc: Cybernetics • Structural Modeling • Systems Science

    #CSPeirce #Connotation #Denotation #Inquiry #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #Mathematics #RelationTheory #Semiosis #SemioticEquivalenceRelations #Semiotics #SignRelations #TriadicRelations

    #cspeirce #connotation #denotation #inquiry #logic #logicofrelatives
  9. Inquiry Into Inquiry @[email protected] ·

    Sign Relations • Definition

    One of Peirce’s clearest and most complete definitions of a sign is one he gives in the context of providing a definition for logic, and so it is informative to view it in that setting.

    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 definition of a line as the place which a particle occupies, part by part, during a lapse of time.  Namely, a sign is something, A, which brings something, B, its interpretant sign determined or created by it, into the same sort of correspondence with something, C, its object, as that in which itself stands to C.

    It is from this definition, together with a definition of “formal”, that I deduce mathematically the principles of logic.  I also make a historical review of all the definitions and conceptions of logic, and show, not merely that my definition is no novelty, but that my non‑psychological conception of logic has virtually been quite generally held, though not generally recognized.

    — C.S. Peirce, New Elements of Mathematics, vol. 4, 20–21

    In the general discussion of diverse theories of signs, the question arises whether signhood is an absolute, essential, indelible, or ontological property of a thing, or whether it is a relational, interpretive, and mutable role a thing may be said to have only within a particular context of relationships.

    Peirce’s definition of a sign defines it in relation to its objects and its interpretant signs, and thus defines signhood in relative terms, by means of a predicate with three places.  In that definition, signhood is a role in a triadic relation, a role a thing bears or plays in a determinate context of relationships — it is not an absolute or non‑relative property of a thing‑in‑itself, one it possesses independently of all relationships to other things.

    Some of the terms Peirce uses in his definition of a sign may need to be elaborated for the contemporary reader.

    • Correspondence.  From the way Peirce uses the term throughout his work, it is clear he means what he elsewhere calls a “triple correspondence”, and thus this is just another way of referring to the whole triadic sign relation itself.  In particular, his use of the term should not be taken to imply a dyadic correspondence, like the kinds of “mirror image” correspondence between realities and representations bandied about in contemporary controversies about “correspondence theories of truth”.
    • Determination.  Peirce’s concept of determination is broader in several directions than the sense of the word referring to strictly deterministic causal‑temporal processes.  First, and especially in this context, he is invoking a more general concept of determination, what is called a formal or informational determination, as in saying “two points determine a line”, rather than the more special cases of causal and temporal determinisms.  Second, he characteristically allows for what is called determination in measure, that is, an order of determinism admitting a full spectrum of more and less determined relationships.
    • Non‑psychological.  Peirce’s “non‑psychological conception of logic” must be distinguished from any variety of anti‑psychologism.  He was quite interested in matters of psychology and had much of import to say about them.  But logic and psychology operate on different planes of study even when they have occasion to view the same data, as logic is a normative science where psychology is a descriptive science, and so they have very different aims, methods, and rationales.

    Reference

    • Peirce, C.S. (1902), “Parts of Carnegie Application” (L 75), in Carolyn Eisele (ed., 1976), The New Elements of Mathematics by Charles S. Peirce, vol. 4, 13–73.  Online.

    Resources

    cc: Academia.edu • Laws of Form • Research Gate • Syscoi
    cc: Cybernetics • Structural Modeling • Systems Science

    #CSPeirce #Connotation #Denotation #Inquiry #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #Mathematics #RelationTheory #Semiosis #SemioticEquivalenceRelations #Semiotics #SignRelations #TriadicRelations

    #triadicrelations #signrelations #semiotics #semioticequivalencerelations #semiosis #relationtheory
  10. Inquiry Into Inquiry @[email protected] ·

    Sign Relations • Definition

    One of Peirce’s clearest and most complete definitions of a sign is one he gives in the context of providing a definition for logic, and so it is informative to view it in that setting.

    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 definition of a line as the place which a particle occupies, part by part, during a lapse of time.  Namely, a sign is something, A, which brings something, B, its interpretant sign determined or created by it, into the same sort of correspondence with something, C, its object, as that in which itself stands to C.

    It is from this definition, together with a definition of “formal”, that I deduce mathematically the principles of logic.  I also make a historical review of all the definitions and conceptions of logic, and show, not merely that my definition is no novelty, but that my non‑psychological conception of logic has virtually been quite generally held, though not generally recognized.

    — C.S. Peirce, New Elements of Mathematics, vol. 4, 20–21

    In the general discussion of diverse theories of signs, the question arises whether signhood is an absolute, essential, indelible, or ontological property of a thing, or whether it is a relational, interpretive, and mutable role a thing may be said to have only within a particular context of relationships.

    Peirce’s definition of a sign defines it in relation to its objects and its interpretant signs, and thus defines signhood in relative terms, by means of a predicate with three places.  In that definition, signhood is a role in a triadic relation, a role a thing bears or plays in a determinate context of relationships — it is not an absolute or non‑relative property of a thing‑in‑itself, one it possesses independently of all relationships to other things.

    Some of the terms Peirce uses in his definition of a sign may need to be elaborated for the contemporary reader.

    • Correspondence.  From the way Peirce uses the term throughout his work, it is clear he means what he elsewhere calls a “triple correspondence”, and thus this is just another way of referring to the whole triadic sign relation itself.  In particular, his use of the term should not be taken to imply a dyadic correspondence, like the kinds of “mirror image” correspondence between realities and representations bandied about in contemporary controversies about “correspondence theories of truth”.
    • Determination.  Peirce’s concept of determination is broader in several directions than the sense of the word referring to strictly deterministic causal‑temporal processes.  First, and especially in this context, he is invoking a more general concept of determination, what is called a formal or informational determination, as in saying “two points determine a line”, rather than the more special cases of causal and temporal determinisms.  Second, he characteristically allows for what is called determination in measure, that is, an order of determinism admitting a full spectrum of more and less determined relationships.
    • Non‑psychological.  Peirce’s “non‑psychological conception of logic” must be distinguished from any variety of anti‑psychologism.  He was quite interested in matters of psychology and had much of import to say about them.  But logic and psychology operate on different planes of study even when they have occasion to view the same data, as logic is a normative science where psychology is a descriptive science, and so they have very different aims, methods, and rationales.

    Reference

    • Peirce, C.S. (1902), “Parts of Carnegie Application” (L 75), in Carolyn Eisele (ed., 1976), The New Elements of Mathematics by Charles S. Peirce, vol. 4, 13–73.  Online.

    Resources

    cc: Academia.edu • Laws of Form • Research Gate • Syscoi
    cc: Cybernetics • Structural Modeling • Systems Science

    #CSPeirce #Connotation #Denotation #Inquiry #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #Mathematics #RelationTheory #Semiosis #SemioticEquivalenceRelations #Semiotics #SignRelations #TriadicRelations

    #cspeirce #connotation #denotation #inquiry #logic #logicofrelatives
  11. Inquiry Into Inquiry @[email protected] ·

    Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 6

    C.S. Peirce defines logic as “formal semiotic”, using formal to highlight the place of logic as a normative science, over and above the descriptive study of signs and their role in wider fields of play.  Understanding logic as Peirce understands it thus requires a companion study of semiotics, semiosis, and sign relations.

    What follows 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 on C.S. Peirce’s concept of triadic sign relations.

    Elements

    Blog Series

    • Peircean Semiotics and Triadic Sign Relations • (1) • (2) • (3)

    Blog Dialogs

    Sources

    • C.S. Peirce • Algebra of Logic ∫ Philosophy of Notation • (1) • (2)
    • C.S. Peirce • Algebra of Logic 1885 • Selections • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4)

    Topics

    Excursions

    • Semiositis • (1)
    • Signspiel • (1)
    • Skiourosemiosis • (1)

    References

    • Awbrey, S.M., and Awbrey, J.L. (2001), “Conceptual Barriers to Creating Integrative Universities”, Organization : The Interdisciplinary Journal of Organization, Theory, and Society 8(2), Sage Publications, London, UK, 269–284.  Abstract.  Online.
    • Awbrey, S.M., and Awbrey, J.L. (September 1999), “Organizations of Learning or Learning Organizations : The Challenge of Creating Integrative Universities for the Next Century”, Second International Conference of the Journal ‘Organization’, Re‑Organizing Knowledge, Trans‑Forming Institutions : Knowing, Knowledge, and the University in the 21st Century, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.  Online.
    • Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1995), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15(1), 40–52.  Archive.  Journal.  Online (doc) (pdf).
    • Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1992), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, The Eleventh International Human Science Research Conference, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan.

    cc: FB | Semeiotics • Laws of Form • Mathstodon • Ontolog • Academia.edu
    cc: Conceptual Graphs • Cybernetics • Structural Modeling • Systems Science

    #CSPeirce #IconIndexSymbol #Inquiry #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #Mathematics #RelationTheory #Semiosis #Semiotics #SignRelations #TriadicRelations #Triadicity #Visualization

    #cspeirce #iconindexsymbol #inquiry #logic #logicofrelatives #mathematics
  12. Inquiry Into Inquiry @[email protected] ·

    Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 6

    C.S. Peirce defines logic as “formal semiotic”, using formal to highlight the place of logic as a normative science, over and above the descriptive study of signs and their role in wider fields of play.  Understanding logic as Peirce understands it thus requires a companion study of semiotics, semiosis, and sign relations.

    What follows 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 on C.S. Peirce’s concept of triadic sign relations.

    Elements

    Blog Series

    • Peircean Semiotics and Triadic Sign Relations • (1) • (2) • (3)

    Blog Dialogs

    Sources

    • C.S. Peirce • Algebra of Logic ∫ Philosophy of Notation • (1) • (2)
    • C.S. Peirce • Algebra of Logic 1885 • Selections • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4)

    Topics

    Excursions

    • Semiositis • (1)
    • Signspiel • (1)
    • Skiourosemiosis • (1)

    References

    • Awbrey, S.M., and Awbrey, J.L. (2001), “Conceptual Barriers to Creating Integrative Universities”, Organization : The Interdisciplinary Journal of Organization, Theory, and Society 8(2), Sage Publications, London, UK, 269–284.  Abstract.  Online.
    • Awbrey, S.M., and Awbrey, J.L. (September 1999), “Organizations of Learning or Learning Organizations : The Challenge of Creating Integrative Universities for the Next Century”, Second International Conference of the Journal ‘Organization’, Re‑Organizing Knowledge, Trans‑Forming Institutions : Knowing, Knowledge, and the University in the 21st Century, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.  Online.
    • Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1995), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15(1), 40–52.  Archive.  Journal.  Online (doc) (pdf).
    • Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1992), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, The Eleventh International Human Science Research Conference, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan.

    cc: FB | Semeiotics • Laws of Form • Mathstodon • Ontolog • Academia.edu
    cc: Conceptual Graphs • Cybernetics • Structural Modeling • Systems Science

    #CSPeirce #IconIndexSymbol #Inquiry #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #Mathematics #RelationTheory #Semiosis #Semiotics #SignRelations #TriadicRelations #Triadicity #Visualization

    #cspeirce #iconindexsymbol #inquiry #logic #logicofrelatives #mathematics
  13. Inquiry Into Inquiry @[email protected] ·

    Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 6

    C.S. Peirce defines logic as “formal semiotic”, using formal to highlight the place of logic as a normative science, over and above the descriptive study of signs and their role in wider fields of play.  Understanding logic as Peirce understands it thus requires a companion study of semiotics, semiosis, and sign relations.

    What follows 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 on C.S. Peirce’s concept of triadic sign relations.

    Elements

    Blog Series

    • Peircean Semiotics and Triadic Sign Relations • (1) • (2) • (3)

    Blog Dialogs

    Sources

    • C.S. Peirce • Algebra of Logic ∫ Philosophy of Notation • (1) • (2)
    • C.S. Peirce • Algebra of Logic 1885 • Selections • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4)

    Topics

    Excursions

    • Semiositis • (1)
    • Signspiel • (1)
    • Skiourosemiosis • (1)

    References

    • Awbrey, S.M., and Awbrey, J.L. (2001), “Conceptual Barriers to Creating Integrative Universities”, Organization : The Interdisciplinary Journal of Organization, Theory, and Society 8(2), Sage Publications, London, UK, 269–284.  Abstract.  Online.
    • Awbrey, S.M., and Awbrey, J.L. (September 1999), “Organizations of Learning or Learning Organizations : The Challenge of Creating Integrative Universities for the Next Century”, Second International Conference of the Journal ‘Organization’, Re‑Organizing Knowledge, Trans‑Forming Institutions : Knowing, Knowledge, and the University in the 21st Century, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.  Online.
    • Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1995), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15(1), 40–52.  Archive.  Journal.  Online (doc) (pdf).
    • Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1992), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, The Eleventh International Human Science Research Conference, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan.

    cc: FB | Semeiotics • Laws of Form • Mathstodon • Ontolog • Academia.edu
    cc: Conceptual Graphs • Cybernetics • Structural Modeling • Systems Science

    #CSPeirce #IconIndexSymbol #Inquiry #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #Mathematics #RelationTheory #Semiosis #Semiotics #SignRelations #TriadicRelations #Triadicity #Visualization

    #cspeirce #iconindexsymbol #inquiry #logic #logicofrelatives #mathematics
  14. Inquiry Into Inquiry @[email protected] ·

    Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 6

    C.S. Peirce defines logic as “formal semiotic”, using formal to highlight the place of logic as a normative science, over and above the descriptive study of signs and their role in wider fields of play.  Understanding logic as Peirce understands it thus requires a companion study of semiotics, semiosis, and sign relations.

    What follows 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 on C.S. Peirce’s concept of triadic sign relations.

    Elements

    Blog Series

    • Peircean Semiotics and Triadic Sign Relations • (1) • (2) • (3)

    Blog Dialogs

    Sources

    • C.S. Peirce • Algebra of Logic ∫ Philosophy of Notation • (1) • (2)
    • C.S. Peirce • Algebra of Logic 1885 • Selections • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4)

    Topics

    Excursions

    • Semiositis • (1)
    • Signspiel • (1)
    • Skiourosemiosis • (1)

    References

    • Awbrey, S.M., and Awbrey, J.L. (2001), “Conceptual Barriers to Creating Integrative Universities”, Organization : The Interdisciplinary Journal of Organization, Theory, and Society 8(2), Sage Publications, London, UK, 269–284.  Abstract.  Online.
    • Awbrey, S.M., and Awbrey, J.L. (September 1999), “Organizations of Learning or Learning Organizations : The Challenge of Creating Integrative Universities for the Next Century”, Second International Conference of the Journal ‘Organization’, Re‑Organizing Knowledge, Trans‑Forming Institutions : Knowing, Knowledge, and the University in the 21st Century, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.  Online.
    • Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1995), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15(1), 40–52.  Archive.  Journal.  Online (doc) (pdf).
    • Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1992), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, The Eleventh International Human Science Research Conference, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan.

    cc: FB | Semeiotics • Laws of Form • Mathstodon • Ontolog • Academia.edu
    cc: Conceptual Graphs • Cybernetics • Structural Modeling • Systems Science

    #CSPeirce #IconIndexSymbol #Inquiry #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #Mathematics #RelationTheory #Semiosis #Semiotics #SignRelations #TriadicRelations #Triadicity #Visualization

    #visualization #triadicity #triadicrelations #signrelations #semiotics #semiosis
  15. Inquiry Into Inquiry @[email protected] ·

    Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 6

    C.S. Peirce defines logic as “formal semiotic”, using formal to highlight the place of logic as a normative science, over and above the descriptive study of signs and their role in wider fields of play.  Understanding logic as Peirce understands it thus requires a companion study of semiotics, semiosis, and sign relations.

    What follows 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 on C.S. Peirce’s concept of triadic sign relations.

    Elements

    Blog Series

    • Peircean Semiotics and Triadic Sign Relations • (1) • (2) • (3)

    Blog Dialogs

    Sources

    • C.S. Peirce • Algebra of Logic ∫ Philosophy of Notation • (1) • (2)
    • C.S. Peirce • Algebra of Logic 1885 • Selections • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4)

    Topics

    Excursions

    • Semiositis • (1)
    • Signspiel • (1)
    • Skiourosemiosis • (1)

    References

    • Awbrey, S.M., and Awbrey, J.L. (2001), “Conceptual Barriers to Creating Integrative Universities”, Organization : The Interdisciplinary Journal of Organization, Theory, and Society 8(2), Sage Publications, London, UK, 269–284.  Abstract.  Online.
    • Awbrey, S.M., and Awbrey, J.L. (September 1999), “Organizations of Learning or Learning Organizations : The Challenge of Creating Integrative Universities for the Next Century”, Second International Conference of the Journal ‘Organization’, Re‑Organizing Knowledge, Trans‑Forming Institutions : Knowing, Knowledge, and the University in the 21st Century, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.  Online.
    • Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1995), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15(1), 40–52.  Archive.  Journal.  Online (doc) (pdf).
    • Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1992), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, The Eleventh International Human Science Research Conference, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan.

    cc: FB | Semeiotics • Laws of Form • Mathstodon • Ontolog • Academia.edu
    cc: Conceptual Graphs • Cybernetics • Structural Modeling • Systems Science

    #CSPeirce #IconIndexSymbol #Inquiry #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #Mathematics #RelationTheory #Semiosis #Semiotics #SignRelations #TriadicRelations #Triadicity #Visualization

    #cspeirce #iconindexsymbol #inquiry #logic #logicofrelatives #mathematics
  16. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    Peircean Semiotics and Triadic Sign Relations • 3
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/08

    Having labored mightily to bring out a new edition of my primer on sign relations, including material on the pivotal concept of semiotic equivalence relations, I thought it worth the candle to post a notice of the new version here.

    Sign Relations
    • oeis.org/wiki/Sign_relation

    Semiotic Equivalence Relations
    • oeis.org/wiki/Sign_relation#Se

    #Peirce #Inquiry #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #RelationTheory
    #Semiotics #Semiosis #SignRelations #TriadicRelations

    #triadicrelations #signrelations #semiosis #semiotics #relationtheory #logicofrelatives
  17. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    Peircean Semiotics and Triadic Sign Relations • 3
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/08

    Having labored mightily to bring out a new edition of my primer on sign relations, including material on the pivotal concept of semiotic equivalence relations, I thought it worth the candle to post a notice of the new version here.

    Sign Relations
    • oeis.org/wiki/Sign_relation

    Semiotic Equivalence Relations
    • oeis.org/wiki/Sign_relation#Se

    #Peirce #Inquiry #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #RelationTheory
    #Semiotics #Semiosis #SignRelations #TriadicRelations

    #triadicrelations #signrelations #semiosis #semiotics #relationtheory #logicofrelatives
  18. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    Peircean Semiotics and Triadic Sign Relations • 3
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/08

    Having labored mightily to bring out a new edition of my primer on sign relations, including material on the pivotal concept of semiotic equivalence relations, I thought it worth the candle to post a notice of the new version here.

    Sign Relations
    • oeis.org/wiki/Sign_relation

    Semiotic Equivalence Relations
    • oeis.org/wiki/Sign_relation#Se

    #Peirce #Inquiry #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #RelationTheory
    #Semiotics #Semiosis #SignRelations #TriadicRelations

    #triadicrelations #signrelations #semiosis #semiotics #relationtheory #logicofrelatives
  19. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    Peircean Semiotics and Triadic Sign Relations • 3
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/08

    Having labored mightily to bring out a new edition of my primer on sign relations, including material on the pivotal concept of semiotic equivalence relations, I thought it worth the candle to post a notice of the new version here.

    Sign Relations
    • oeis.org/wiki/Sign_relation

    Semiotic Equivalence Relations
    • oeis.org/wiki/Sign_relation#Se

    #Peirce #Inquiry #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #RelationTheory
    #Semiotics #Semiosis #SignRelations #TriadicRelations

    #peirce #inquiry #logic #logicofrelatives #relationtheory #semiotics
  20. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    Peircean Semiotics and Triadic Sign Relations • 3
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/08

    Having labored mightily to bring out a new edition of my primer on sign relations, including material on the pivotal concept of semiotic equivalence relations, I thought it worth the candle to post a notice of the new version here.

    Sign Relations
    • oeis.org/wiki/Sign_relation

    Semiotic Equivalence Relations
    • oeis.org/wiki/Sign_relation#Se

    #Peirce #Inquiry #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #RelationTheory
    #Semiotics #Semiosis #SignRelations #TriadicRelations

    #triadicrelations #signrelations #semiosis #semiotics #relationtheory #logicofrelatives
  21. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    Peircean Semiotics and Triadic Sign Relations • 2
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/08

    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 over time through the medium which gives it concrete embodiment, namely, a triadic sign relation.

    Up until that time I don't believe I'd ever given much thought to sign relations that had anything smaller than infinite domains of objects, signs, and interpretant signs. Countably infinite domains are what come natural in logic, since that is the norm for the formal languages it uses. Continuous domains come first to mind when turning to physical systems, despite the fact that systems with a discrete or quantized character often enter the fray.

    So it came as a bit of a novelty to me when my advisor, following the motto of engineers the world over to “Keep It Simple, Stupid!” — affectionately known by the acronym KISS — asked me to construct the simplest non‑trivial finite example of a sign relation I could possibly come up with. The outcome of that exercise I wrote up in the following primer on sign relations.

    Inquiry Driven Systems • Sign Relations : A Primer
    • oeis.org/wiki/Inquiry_Driven_S

    Inquiry Driven Systems • Semiotic Equivalence Relations
    • oeis.org/wiki/Inquiry_Driven_S

    #Peirce #Inquiry #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #RelationTheory
    #Semiotics #Semiosis #SignRelations #TriadicRelations

    #triadicrelations #signrelations #semiosis #semiotics #relationtheory #logicofrelatives
  22. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    Peircean Semiotics and Triadic Sign Relations • 2
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/08

    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 over time through the medium which gives it concrete embodiment, namely, a triadic sign relation.

    Up until that time I don't believe I'd ever given much thought to sign relations that had anything smaller than infinite domains of objects, signs, and interpretant signs. Countably infinite domains are what come natural in logic, since that is the norm for the formal languages it uses. Continuous domains come first to mind when turning to physical systems, despite the fact that systems with a discrete or quantized character often enter the fray.

    So it came as a bit of a novelty to me when my advisor, following the motto of engineers the world over to “Keep It Simple, Stupid!” — affectionately known by the acronym KISS — asked me to construct the simplest non‑trivial finite example of a sign relation I could possibly come up with. The outcome of that exercise I wrote up in the following primer on sign relations.

    Inquiry Driven Systems • Sign Relations : A Primer
    • oeis.org/wiki/Inquiry_Driven_S

    Inquiry Driven Systems • Semiotic Equivalence Relations
    • oeis.org/wiki/Inquiry_Driven_S

    #Peirce #Inquiry #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #RelationTheory
    #Semiotics #Semiosis #SignRelations #TriadicRelations

    #triadicrelations #signrelations #semiosis #semiotics #relationtheory #logicofrelatives
  23. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    Peircean Semiotics and Triadic Sign Relations • 2
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/08

    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 over time through the medium which gives it concrete embodiment, namely, a triadic sign relation.

    Up until that time I don't believe I'd ever given much thought to sign relations that had anything smaller than infinite domains of objects, signs, and interpretant signs. Countably infinite domains are what come natural in logic, since that is the norm for the formal languages it uses. Continuous domains come first to mind when turning to physical systems, despite the fact that systems with a discrete or quantized character often enter the fray.

    So it came as a bit of a novelty to me when my advisor, following the motto of engineers the world over to “Keep It Simple, Stupid!” — affectionately known by the acronym KISS — asked me to construct the simplest non‑trivial finite example of a sign relation I could possibly come up with. The outcome of that exercise I wrote up in the following primer on sign relations.

    Inquiry Driven Systems • Sign Relations : A Primer
    • oeis.org/wiki/Inquiry_Driven_S

    Inquiry Driven Systems • Semiotic Equivalence Relations
    • oeis.org/wiki/Inquiry_Driven_S

    #Peirce #Inquiry #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #RelationTheory
    #Semiotics #Semiosis #SignRelations #TriadicRelations

    #triadicrelations #signrelations #semiosis #semiotics #relationtheory #logicofrelatives
  24. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    Peircean Semiotics and Triadic Sign Relations • 2
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/08

    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 over time through the medium which gives it concrete embodiment, namely, a triadic sign relation.

    Up until that time I don't believe I'd ever given much thought to sign relations that had anything smaller than infinite domains of objects, signs, and interpretant signs. Countably infinite domains are what come natural in logic, since that is the norm for the formal languages it uses. Continuous domains come first to mind when turning to physical systems, despite the fact that systems with a discrete or quantized character often enter the fray.

    So it came as a bit of a novelty to me when my advisor, following the motto of engineers the world over to “Keep It Simple, Stupid!” — affectionately known by the acronym KISS — asked me to construct the simplest non‑trivial finite example of a sign relation I could possibly come up with. The outcome of that exercise I wrote up in the following primer on sign relations.

    Inquiry Driven Systems • Sign Relations : A Primer
    • oeis.org/wiki/Inquiry_Driven_S

    Inquiry Driven Systems • Semiotic Equivalence Relations
    • oeis.org/wiki/Inquiry_Driven_S

    #Peirce #Inquiry #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #RelationTheory
    #Semiotics #Semiosis #SignRelations #TriadicRelations

    #peirce #inquiry #logic #logicofrelatives #relationtheory #semiotics
  25. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    Peircean Semiotics and Triadic Sign Relations • 2
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/08

    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 over time through the medium which gives it concrete embodiment, namely, a triadic sign relation.

    Up until that time I don't believe I'd ever given much thought to sign relations that had anything smaller than infinite domains of objects, signs, and interpretant signs. Countably infinite domains are what come natural in logic, since that is the norm for the formal languages it uses. Continuous domains come first to mind when turning to physical systems, despite the fact that systems with a discrete or quantized character often enter the fray.

    So it came as a bit of a novelty to me when my advisor, following the motto of engineers the world over to “Keep It Simple, Stupid!” — affectionately known by the acronym KISS — asked me to construct the simplest non‑trivial finite example of a sign relation I could possibly come up with. The outcome of that exercise I wrote up in the following primer on sign relations.

    Inquiry Driven Systems • Sign Relations : A Primer
    • oeis.org/wiki/Inquiry_Driven_S

    Inquiry Driven Systems • Semiotic Equivalence Relations
    • oeis.org/wiki/Inquiry_Driven_S

    #Peirce #Inquiry #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #RelationTheory
    #Semiotics #Semiosis #SignRelations #TriadicRelations

    #triadicrelations #signrelations #semiosis #semiotics #relationtheory #logicofrelatives
  26. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    Peircean Semiotics and Triadic Sign Relations • 1
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/08

    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, let me recommend the following most excellent paper, which I can say with all due modesty in light of the fact all its excellence is due to my most excellent co‑author.

    Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1995), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15(1), pp. 40–52.
    • web.archive.org/web/2000121016
    • pdcnet.org/inquiryct/content/i
    • academia.edu/1266493/Interpret
    • academia.edu/57812482/Interpre

    #Peirce #Inquiry #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #RelationTheory
    #Semiotics #Semiosis #SignRelations #TriadicRelations

    #triadicrelations #signrelations #semiosis #semiotics #relationtheory #logicofrelatives
  27. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    Peircean Semiotics and Triadic Sign Relations • 1
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/08

    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, let me recommend the following most excellent paper, which I can say with all due modesty in light of the fact all its excellence is due to my most excellent co‑author.

    Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1995), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15(1), pp. 40–52.
    • web.archive.org/web/2000121016
    • pdcnet.org/inquiryct/content/i
    • academia.edu/1266493/Interpret
    • academia.edu/57812482/Interpre

    #Peirce #Inquiry #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #RelationTheory
    #Semiotics #Semiosis #SignRelations #TriadicRelations

    #triadicrelations #signrelations #semiosis #semiotics #relationtheory #logicofrelatives
  28. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    Peircean Semiotics and Triadic Sign Relations • 1
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/08

    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, let me recommend the following most excellent paper, which I can say with all due modesty in light of the fact all its excellence is due to my most excellent co‑author.

    Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1995), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15(1), pp. 40–52.
    • web.archive.org/web/2000121016
    • pdcnet.org/inquiryct/content/i
    • academia.edu/1266493/Interpret
    • academia.edu/57812482/Interpre

    #Peirce #Inquiry #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #RelationTheory
    #Semiotics #Semiosis #SignRelations #TriadicRelations

    #triadicrelations #signrelations #semiosis #semiotics #relationtheory #logicofrelatives
  29. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    Peircean Semiotics and Triadic Sign Relations • 1
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/08

    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, let me recommend the following most excellent paper, which I can say with all due modesty in light of the fact all its excellence is due to my most excellent co‑author.

    Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1995), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15(1), pp. 40–52.
    • web.archive.org/web/2000121016
    • pdcnet.org/inquiryct/content/i
    • academia.edu/1266493/Interpret
    • academia.edu/57812482/Interpre

    #Peirce #Inquiry #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #RelationTheory
    #Semiotics #Semiosis #SignRelations #TriadicRelations

    #peirce #inquiry #logic #logicofrelatives #relationtheory #semiotics
  30. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    Peircean Semiotics and Triadic Sign Relations • 1
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/08

    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, let me recommend the following most excellent paper, which I can say with all due modesty in light of the fact all its excellence is due to my most excellent co‑author.

    Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1995), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15(1), pp. 40–52.
    • web.archive.org/web/2000121016
    • pdcnet.org/inquiryct/content/i
    • academia.edu/1266493/Interpret
    • academia.edu/57812482/Interpre

    #Peirce #Inquiry #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #RelationTheory
    #Semiotics #Semiosis #SignRelations #TriadicRelations

    #triadicrelations #signrelations #semiosis #semiotics #relationtheory #logicofrelatives
  31. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    Logic of Relatives
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/08

    Relations Via Relative Terms —

    The logic of relatives is the study of relations as represented in symbolic forms known as rhemes, rhemata, or relative terms.

    Introduction —

    The logic of relatives, more precisely, the logic of relative terms, is the study of relations as represented in symbolic forms called rhemes, rhemata, or relative terms. The treatment of relations by way of their corresponding relative terms affords a distinctive perspective on the subject, even though all angles of approach must ultimately converge on the same formal subject matter.

    The consideration of relative terms has its roots in antiquity but it entered a radically new phase of development with the work of Charles Sanders Peirce, beginning with his paper “Description of a Notation for the Logic of Relatives, Resulting from an Amplification of the Conceptions of Boole's Calculus of Logic” (1870).

    References —

    • Peirce, C.S., “Description of a Notation for the Logic of Relatives, Resulting from an Amplification of the Conceptions of Boole's Calculus of Logic”, Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 9, 317–378, 1870. Reprinted, Collected Papers CP 3.45–149. Reprinted, Chronological Edition CE 2, 359–429.
    • jstor.org/stable/25058006
    • archive.org/details/jstor-2505
    • books.google.com/books?id=fFnW

    Resources —

    Charles Sanders Peirce
    • mywikibiz.com/Charles_Sanders_

    Relation Theory
    • oeis.org/wiki/Relation_theory

    Survey of Relation Theory
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/03

    Peirce's 1870 Logic of Relatives
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/09
    • oeis.org/wiki/Peirce%27s_1870_

    #Peirce #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #MathematicalLogic
    #Mathematics #RelationTheory #Semiotics #SignRelations

    #signrelations #semiotics #relationtheory #mathematics #mathematicallogic #logicofrelatives
  32. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    Logic of Relatives
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/08

    Relations Via Relative Terms —

    The logic of relatives is the study of relations as represented in symbolic forms known as rhemes, rhemata, or relative terms.

    Introduction —

    The logic of relatives, more precisely, the logic of relative terms, is the study of relations as represented in symbolic forms called rhemes, rhemata, or relative terms. The treatment of relations by way of their corresponding relative terms affords a distinctive perspective on the subject, even though all angles of approach must ultimately converge on the same formal subject matter.

    The consideration of relative terms has its roots in antiquity but it entered a radically new phase of development with the work of Charles Sanders Peirce, beginning with his paper “Description of a Notation for the Logic of Relatives, Resulting from an Amplification of the Conceptions of Boole's Calculus of Logic” (1870).

    References —

    • Peirce, C.S., “Description of a Notation for the Logic of Relatives, Resulting from an Amplification of the Conceptions of Boole's Calculus of Logic”, Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 9, 317–378, 1870. Reprinted, Collected Papers CP 3.45–149. Reprinted, Chronological Edition CE 2, 359–429.
    • jstor.org/stable/25058006
    • archive.org/details/jstor-2505
    • books.google.com/books?id=fFnW

    Resources —

    Charles Sanders Peirce
    • mywikibiz.com/Charles_Sanders_

    Relation Theory
    • oeis.org/wiki/Relation_theory

    Survey of Relation Theory
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/03

    Peirce's 1870 Logic of Relatives
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/09
    • oeis.org/wiki/Peirce%27s_1870_

    #Peirce #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #MathematicalLogic
    #Mathematics #RelationTheory #Semiotics #SignRelations

    #signrelations #semiotics #relationtheory #mathematics #mathematicallogic #logicofrelatives
  33. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    Logic of Relatives
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/08

    Relations Via Relative Terms —

    The logic of relatives is the study of relations as represented in symbolic forms known as rhemes, rhemata, or relative terms.

    Introduction —

    The logic of relatives, more precisely, the logic of relative terms, is the study of relations as represented in symbolic forms called rhemes, rhemata, or relative terms. The treatment of relations by way of their corresponding relative terms affords a distinctive perspective on the subject, even though all angles of approach must ultimately converge on the same formal subject matter.

    The consideration of relative terms has its roots in antiquity but it entered a radically new phase of development with the work of Charles Sanders Peirce, beginning with his paper “Description of a Notation for the Logic of Relatives, Resulting from an Amplification of the Conceptions of Boole's Calculus of Logic” (1870).

    References —

    • Peirce, C.S., “Description of a Notation for the Logic of Relatives, Resulting from an Amplification of the Conceptions of Boole's Calculus of Logic”, Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 9, 317–378, 1870. Reprinted, Collected Papers CP 3.45–149. Reprinted, Chronological Edition CE 2, 359–429.
    • jstor.org/stable/25058006
    • archive.org/details/jstor-2505
    • books.google.com/books?id=fFnW

    Resources —

    Charles Sanders Peirce
    • mywikibiz.com/Charles_Sanders_

    Relation Theory
    • oeis.org/wiki/Relation_theory

    Survey of Relation Theory
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/03

    Peirce's 1870 Logic of Relatives
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/09
    • oeis.org/wiki/Peirce%27s_1870_

    #Peirce #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #MathematicalLogic
    #Mathematics #RelationTheory #Semiotics #SignRelations

    #signrelations #semiotics #relationtheory #mathematics #mathematicallogic #logicofrelatives
  34. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    Logic of Relatives
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/08

    Relations Via Relative Terms —

    The logic of relatives is the study of relations as represented in symbolic forms known as rhemes, rhemata, or relative terms.

    Introduction —

    The logic of relatives, more precisely, the logic of relative terms, is the study of relations as represented in symbolic forms called rhemes, rhemata, or relative terms. The treatment of relations by way of their corresponding relative terms affords a distinctive perspective on the subject, even though all angles of approach must ultimately converge on the same formal subject matter.

    The consideration of relative terms has its roots in antiquity but it entered a radically new phase of development with the work of Charles Sanders Peirce, beginning with his paper “Description of a Notation for the Logic of Relatives, Resulting from an Amplification of the Conceptions of Boole's Calculus of Logic” (1870).

    References —

    • Peirce, C.S., “Description of a Notation for the Logic of Relatives, Resulting from an Amplification of the Conceptions of Boole's Calculus of Logic”, Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 9, 317–378, 1870. Reprinted, Collected Papers CP 3.45–149. Reprinted, Chronological Edition CE 2, 359–429.
    • jstor.org/stable/25058006
    • archive.org/details/jstor-2505
    • books.google.com/books?id=fFnW

    Resources —

    Charles Sanders Peirce
    • mywikibiz.com/Charles_Sanders_

    Relation Theory
    • oeis.org/wiki/Relation_theory

    Survey of Relation Theory
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/03

    Peirce's 1870 Logic of Relatives
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/09
    • oeis.org/wiki/Peirce%27s_1870_

    #Peirce #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #MathematicalLogic
    #Mathematics #RelationTheory #Semiotics #SignRelations

    #peirce #logic #logicofrelatives #mathematicallogic #mathematics #relationtheory
  35. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    Logic of Relatives
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/08

    Relations Via Relative Terms —

    The logic of relatives is the study of relations as represented in symbolic forms known as rhemes, rhemata, or relative terms.

    Introduction —

    The logic of relatives, more precisely, the logic of relative terms, is the study of relations as represented in symbolic forms called rhemes, rhemata, or relative terms. The treatment of relations by way of their corresponding relative terms affords a distinctive perspective on the subject, even though all angles of approach must ultimately converge on the same formal subject matter.

    The consideration of relative terms has its roots in antiquity but it entered a radically new phase of development with the work of Charles Sanders Peirce, beginning with his paper “Description of a Notation for the Logic of Relatives, Resulting from an Amplification of the Conceptions of Boole's Calculus of Logic” (1870).

    References —

    • Peirce, C.S., “Description of a Notation for the Logic of Relatives, Resulting from an Amplification of the Conceptions of Boole's Calculus of Logic”, Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 9, 317–378, 1870. Reprinted, Collected Papers CP 3.45–149. Reprinted, Chronological Edition CE 2, 359–429.
    • jstor.org/stable/25058006
    • archive.org/details/jstor-2505
    • books.google.com/books?id=fFnW

    Resources —

    Charles Sanders Peirce
    • mywikibiz.com/Charles_Sanders_

    Relation Theory
    • oeis.org/wiki/Relation_theory

    Survey of Relation Theory
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/03

    Peirce's 1870 Logic of Relatives
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/09
    • oeis.org/wiki/Peirce%27s_1870_

    #Peirce #Logic #LogicOfRelatives #MathematicalLogic
    #Mathematics #RelationTheory #Semiotics #SignRelations

    #signrelations #semiotics #relationtheory #mathematics #mathematicallogic #logicofrelatives
  36. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    @dearlove @JimPropp

    cf. Logical Involution

    Peirce’s 1870 “Logic of Relatives” • Selection 12
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06

    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06

    #LogicOfRelatives #LogicalInvolution

    #logicalinvolution #logicofrelatives
  37. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    @dearlove @JimPropp

    cf. Logical Involution

    Peirce’s 1870 “Logic of Relatives” • Selection 12
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06

    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06

    #LogicOfRelatives #LogicalInvolution

    #logicalinvolution #logicofrelatives
  38. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    @dearlove @JimPropp

    cf. Logical Involution

    Peirce’s 1870 “Logic of Relatives” • Selection 12
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06

    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06

    #LogicOfRelatives #LogicalInvolution

    #logicofrelatives #logicalinvolution
  39. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    @dearlove @JimPropp

    cf. Logical Involution

    Peirce’s 1870 “Logic of Relatives” • Selection 12
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06

    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06

    #LogicOfRelatives #LogicalInvolution

    #logicalinvolution #logicofrelatives
  40. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    @dearlove @JimPropp

    cf. Logical Involution

    Peirce’s 1870 “Logic of Relatives” • Selection 12
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06

    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06

    #LogicOfRelatives #LogicalInvolution

    #logicalinvolution #logicofrelatives
  41. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    Peirce's 1885 “Algebra of Logic” • Discussion 2
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/04

    Re: FB | Daniel Everett

    One thing I've been trying to understand for a very long time is the changes in Peirce's writing about math and logic from 1865 to 1885. If there's anything I've learned from reading Peirce in the often dim light of intellectual history it is to be wary of progressivist assumptions — but unlike many of his other fans I apply that caution also within the body of his own work. Long story short, from 1865 to 1885 I see progress on several fronts but also bits of backsliding from his more prescient early insights. So it's a puzzle … and it will take more study to ravel out the reasons why.

    Resources for reconciling Peirce's two accounts —
    1. The 1870 account of logical involution
    2. The 1885 account of universal quantification

    Peirce's 1870 “Logic of Relatives” • Selection 12 • The Sign of Involution
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06
    Comments —
    (1) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06
    (2) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06
    (3) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06
    (4) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06
    (5) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06

    Peirce's 1885 “Algebra of Logic” • Selections
    (1) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/03
    (2) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/03
    (3) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/03
    (4) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/04

    Peirce, C.S. (1885), “On the Algebra of Logic : A Contribution to the Philosophy of Notation”, American Journal of Mathematics 7, 180–202.
    • jstor.org/stable/2369451

    #Peirce #Logic #AlgebraOfLogic #LogicOfRelatives #RelationTheory #CategoryTheory
    #Semiotics #PredicateCalculus #Quantification #LogicalInvolution #ComputerScience

    #computerscience #logicalinvolution #quantification #predicatecalculus #semiotics #categorytheory
  42. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    Peirce's 1885 “Algebra of Logic” • Discussion 2
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/04

    Re: FB | Daniel Everett

    One thing I've been trying to understand for a very long time is the changes in Peirce's writing about math and logic from 1865 to 1885. If there's anything I've learned from reading Peirce in the often dim light of intellectual history it is to be wary of progressivist assumptions — but unlike many of his other fans I apply that caution also within the body of his own work. Long story short, from 1865 to 1885 I see progress on several fronts but also bits of backsliding from his more prescient early insights. So it's a puzzle … and it will take more study to ravel out the reasons why.

    Resources for reconciling Peirce's two accounts —
    1. The 1870 account of logical involution
    2. The 1885 account of universal quantification

    Peirce's 1870 “Logic of Relatives” • Selection 12 • The Sign of Involution
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06
    Comments —
    (1) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06
    (2) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06
    (3) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06
    (4) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06
    (5) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06

    Peirce's 1885 “Algebra of Logic” • Selections
    (1) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/03
    (2) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/03
    (3) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/03
    (4) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/04

    Peirce, C.S. (1885), “On the Algebra of Logic : A Contribution to the Philosophy of Notation”, American Journal of Mathematics 7, 180–202.
    • jstor.org/stable/2369451

    #Peirce #Logic #AlgebraOfLogic #LogicOfRelatives #RelationTheory #CategoryTheory
    #Semiotics #PredicateCalculus #Quantification #LogicalInvolution #ComputerScience

    #computerscience #logicalinvolution #quantification #predicatecalculus #semiotics #categorytheory
  43. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    Peirce's 1885 “Algebra of Logic” • Discussion 2
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/04

    Re: FB | Daniel Everett

    One thing I've been trying to understand for a very long time is the changes in Peirce's writing about math and logic from 1865 to 1885. If there's anything I've learned from reading Peirce in the often dim light of intellectual history it is to be wary of progressivist assumptions — but unlike many of his other fans I apply that caution also within the body of his own work. Long story short, from 1865 to 1885 I see progress on several fronts but also bits of backsliding from his more prescient early insights. So it's a puzzle … and it will take more study to ravel out the reasons why.

    Resources for reconciling Peirce's two accounts —
    1. The 1870 account of logical involution
    2. The 1885 account of universal quantification

    Peirce's 1870 “Logic of Relatives” • Selection 12 • The Sign of Involution
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06
    Comments —
    (1) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06
    (2) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06
    (3) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06
    (4) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06
    (5) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06

    Peirce's 1885 “Algebra of Logic” • Selections
    (1) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/03
    (2) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/03
    (3) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/03
    (4) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/04

    Peirce, C.S. (1885), “On the Algebra of Logic : A Contribution to the Philosophy of Notation”, American Journal of Mathematics 7, 180–202.
    • jstor.org/stable/2369451

    #Peirce #Logic #AlgebraOfLogic #LogicOfRelatives #RelationTheory #CategoryTheory
    #Semiotics #PredicateCalculus #Quantification #LogicalInvolution #ComputerScience

    #peirce #logic #algebraoflogic #logicofrelatives #relationtheory #categorytheory
  44. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    Peirce's 1885 “Algebra of Logic” • Discussion 2
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/04

    Re: FB | Daniel Everett

    One thing I've been trying to understand for a very long time is the changes in Peirce's writing about math and logic from 1865 to 1885. If there's anything I've learned from reading Peirce in the often dim light of intellectual history it is to be wary of progressivist assumptions — but unlike many of his other fans I apply that caution also within the body of his own work. Long story short, from 1865 to 1885 I see progress on several fronts but also bits of backsliding from his more prescient early insights. So it's a puzzle … and it will take more study to ravel out the reasons why.

    Resources for reconciling Peirce's two accounts —
    1. The 1870 account of logical involution
    2. The 1885 account of universal quantification

    Peirce's 1870 “Logic of Relatives” • Selection 12 • The Sign of Involution
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06
    Comments —
    (1) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06
    (2) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06
    (3) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06
    (4) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06
    (5) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06

    Peirce's 1885 “Algebra of Logic” • Selections
    (1) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/03
    (2) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/03
    (3) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/03
    (4) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/04

    Peirce, C.S. (1885), “On the Algebra of Logic : A Contribution to the Philosophy of Notation”, American Journal of Mathematics 7, 180–202.
    • jstor.org/stable/2369451

    #Peirce #Logic #AlgebraOfLogic #LogicOfRelatives #RelationTheory #CategoryTheory
    #Semiotics #PredicateCalculus #Quantification #LogicalInvolution #ComputerScience

    #computerscience #logicalinvolution #quantification #predicatecalculus #semiotics #categorytheory
  45. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    Peirce's 1885 “Algebra of Logic” • Discussion 2
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/04

    Re: FB | Daniel Everett

    One thing I've been trying to understand for a very long time is the changes in Peirce's writing about math and logic from 1865 to 1885. If there's anything I've learned from reading Peirce in the often dim light of intellectual history it is to be wary of progressivist assumptions — but unlike many of his other fans I apply that caution also within the body of his own work. Long story short, from 1865 to 1885 I see progress on several fronts but also bits of backsliding from his more prescient early insights. So it's a puzzle … and it will take more study to ravel out the reasons why.

    Resources for reconciling Peirce's two accounts —
    1. The 1870 account of logical involution
    2. The 1885 account of universal quantification

    Peirce's 1870 “Logic of Relatives” • Selection 12 • The Sign of Involution
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06
    Comments —
    (1) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06
    (2) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06
    (3) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06
    (4) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06
    (5) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06

    Peirce's 1885 “Algebra of Logic” • Selections
    (1) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/03
    (2) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/03
    (3) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/03
    (4) inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/04

    Peirce, C.S. (1885), “On the Algebra of Logic : A Contribution to the Philosophy of Notation”, American Journal of Mathematics 7, 180–202.
    • jstor.org/stable/2369451

    #Peirce #Logic #AlgebraOfLogic #LogicOfRelatives #RelationTheory #CategoryTheory
    #Semiotics #PredicateCalculus #Quantification #LogicalInvolution #ComputerScience

    #computerscience #logicalinvolution #quantification #predicatecalculus #semiotics #categorytheory
  46. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    Peirce's 1885 “Algebra of Logic” • Discussion 1
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/04

    Re: FB | Daniel Everett

    DE:
    ❝One of the most important papers in the history of logic. “On the Algebra of Logic” was the first to introduce the term “quantifier”.

    ❝Peirce, C.S. (1885), “On the Algebra of Logic : A Contribution to the Philosophy of Notation”, American Journal of Mathematics 7, 180–202.
    • jstor.org/stable/2369451 ❞

    As far as quantification by any other word goes, Peirce had already introduced a more advanced and “functional” concept of quantification in his 1870 “Logic of Relatives”. The subsequent passage to Fregean styles of first order logic would turn out to be a retrograde movement toward syntacticism (a species of nominalism), as seen in the general run of what fol‑lowed in the fol‑lowing years.

    See ☞ Peirce's 1870 “Logic of Relatives”
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/09

    Especially ☞ “The Sign of Involution”
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06

    The connection between logical involution and universal quantification which Peirce put to use in his 1870 Logic of Relatives will turn up again a century later with the application of category theory to computer science and both of those in turn to logic. Just one more time Peirce was that far ahead of it.

    See ☞ Lambek and Scott (1986), Introduction to Higher Order Categorical Logic, Cambridge University Press.
    • oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey/

    #Peirce #Logic #AlgebraOfLogic #LogicOfRelatives #RelationTheory #CategoryTheory
    #Semiotics #PredicateCalculus #Quantification #LogicalInvolution #ComputerScience

    #logicalinvolution #quantification #predicatecalculus #semiotics #relationtheory #logicofrelatives
  47. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    Peirce's 1885 “Algebra of Logic” • Discussion 1
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/04

    Re: FB | Daniel Everett

    DE:
    ❝One of the most important papers in the history of logic. “On the Algebra of Logic” was the first to introduce the term “quantifier”.

    ❝Peirce, C.S. (1885), “On the Algebra of Logic : A Contribution to the Philosophy of Notation”, American Journal of Mathematics 7, 180–202.
    • jstor.org/stable/2369451 ❞

    As far as quantification by any other word goes, Peirce had already introduced a more advanced and “functional” concept of quantification in his 1870 “Logic of Relatives”. The subsequent passage to Fregean styles of first order logic would turn out to be a retrograde movement toward syntacticism (a species of nominalism), as seen in the general run of what fol‑lowed in the fol‑lowing years.

    See ☞ Peirce's 1870 “Logic of Relatives”
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/09

    Especially ☞ “The Sign of Involution”
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06

    The connection between logical involution and universal quantification which Peirce put to use in his 1870 Logic of Relatives will turn up again a century later with the application of category theory to computer science and both of those in turn to logic. Just one more time Peirce was that far ahead of it.

    See ☞ Lambek and Scott (1986), Introduction to Higher Order Categorical Logic, Cambridge University Press.
    • oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey/

    #Peirce #Logic #AlgebraOfLogic #LogicOfRelatives #RelationTheory #CategoryTheory
    #Semiotics #PredicateCalculus #Quantification #LogicalInvolution #ComputerScience

    #logicalinvolution #quantification #predicatecalculus #semiotics #relationtheory #logicofrelatives
  48. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    Peirce's 1885 “Algebra of Logic” • Discussion 1
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/04

    Re: FB | Daniel Everett

    DE:
    ❝One of the most important papers in the history of logic. “On the Algebra of Logic” was the first to introduce the term “quantifier”.

    ❝Peirce, C.S. (1885), “On the Algebra of Logic : A Contribution to the Philosophy of Notation”, American Journal of Mathematics 7, 180–202.
    • jstor.org/stable/2369451 ❞

    As far as quantification by any other word goes, Peirce had already introduced a more advanced and “functional” concept of quantification in his 1870 “Logic of Relatives”. The subsequent passage to Fregean styles of first order logic would turn out to be a retrograde movement toward syntacticism (a species of nominalism), as seen in the general run of what fol‑lowed in the fol‑lowing years.

    See ☞ Peirce's 1870 “Logic of Relatives”
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/09

    Especially ☞ “The Sign of Involution”
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06

    The connection between logical involution and universal quantification which Peirce put to use in his 1870 Logic of Relatives will turn up again a century later with the application of category theory to computer science and both of those in turn to logic. Just one more time Peirce was that far ahead of it.

    See ☞ Lambek and Scott (1986), Introduction to Higher Order Categorical Logic, Cambridge University Press.
    • oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey/

    #Peirce #Logic #AlgebraOfLogic #LogicOfRelatives #RelationTheory #CategoryTheory
    #Semiotics #PredicateCalculus #Quantification #LogicalInvolution #ComputerScience

    #categorytheory #computerscience #peirce #logic #algebraoflogic #logicofrelatives
  49. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    Peirce's 1885 “Algebra of Logic” • Discussion 1
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/04

    Re: FB | Daniel Everett

    DE:
    ❝One of the most important papers in the history of logic. “On the Algebra of Logic” was the first to introduce the term “quantifier”.

    ❝Peirce, C.S. (1885), “On the Algebra of Logic : A Contribution to the Philosophy of Notation”, American Journal of Mathematics 7, 180–202.
    • jstor.org/stable/2369451 ❞

    As far as quantification by any other word goes, Peirce had already introduced a more advanced and “functional” concept of quantification in his 1870 “Logic of Relatives”. The subsequent passage to Fregean styles of first order logic would turn out to be a retrograde movement toward syntacticism (a species of nominalism), as seen in the general run of what fol‑lowed in the fol‑lowing years.

    See ☞ Peirce's 1870 “Logic of Relatives”
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/09

    Especially ☞ “The Sign of Involution”
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06

    The connection between logical involution and universal quantification which Peirce put to use in his 1870 Logic of Relatives will turn up again a century later with the application of category theory to computer science and both of those in turn to logic. Just one more time Peirce was that far ahead of it.

    See ☞ Lambek and Scott (1986), Introduction to Higher Order Categorical Logic, Cambridge University Press.
    • oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey/

    #Peirce #Logic #AlgebraOfLogic #LogicOfRelatives #RelationTheory #CategoryTheory
    #Semiotics #PredicateCalculus #Quantification #LogicalInvolution #ComputerScience

    #logicalinvolution #quantification #predicatecalculus #semiotics #relationtheory #logicofrelatives
  50. Jon Awbrey @[email protected] ·

    Peirce's 1885 “Algebra of Logic” • Discussion 1
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/04

    Re: FB | Daniel Everett

    DE:
    ❝One of the most important papers in the history of logic. “On the Algebra of Logic” was the first to introduce the term “quantifier”.

    ❝Peirce, C.S. (1885), “On the Algebra of Logic : A Contribution to the Philosophy of Notation”, American Journal of Mathematics 7, 180–202.
    • jstor.org/stable/2369451 ❞

    As far as quantification by any other word goes, Peirce had already introduced a more advanced and “functional” concept of quantification in his 1870 “Logic of Relatives”. The subsequent passage to Fregean styles of first order logic would turn out to be a retrograde movement toward syntacticism (a species of nominalism), as seen in the general run of what fol‑lowed in the fol‑lowing years.

    See ☞ Peirce's 1870 “Logic of Relatives”
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/09

    Especially ☞ “The Sign of Involution”
    • inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06

    The connection between logical involution and universal quantification which Peirce put to use in his 1870 Logic of Relatives will turn up again a century later with the application of category theory to computer science and both of those in turn to logic. Just one more time Peirce was that far ahead of it.

    See ☞ Lambek and Scott (1986), Introduction to Higher Order Categorical Logic, Cambridge University Press.
    • oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey/

    #Peirce #Logic #AlgebraOfLogic #LogicOfRelatives #RelationTheory #CategoryTheory
    #Semiotics #PredicateCalculus #Quantification #LogicalInvolution #ComputerScience

    #logicalinvolution #quantification #predicatecalculus #semiotics #relationtheory #logicofrelatives