Re: SUO: RE: Reductions Among Relations
>Pat,
>
>What you are mistaking for a sign in the email below is the specialized
>sign type called a token, one of Peirce's few sign types to have achieved
>widespread use (others: index, icon, symbol, type). And your misgivings
>would certainly be well founded if anyone proposed to found an ontology
>upon the token. The sign is a formally defined, irreducibly triadic
>relation, a 3-in-1.
Thanks, Lee, but this is exactly the kind of non-explanation that I
was hoping to avoid. (And I wasn't talking about tokens, but lexical
types. A small point.) I really, in all honesty, am not able to wring
the slightest amount of useful content from being told that a (the?
Is there only one of them?) sign is a 3-in-1. And as we have now
surely done to exhaustion, nothing is "irreducibly triadic."
>Whence the triadic recursions that Jon Aubrey likes to
>draw out.
I confess to no longer reading any messages from Jon. The useful
content does not pay for the effort of distillation.
>The sign is thus not to be "distinguished from other representational
>structures" but is rather the general form all such structures may be seen
>to take.
I know of no 'general form' in this sense.
Pat
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes