SUO: Re: Sign Relations & Communication
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
JA = Jon Awbrey
SR = Seth Russell
JA cartouches:
o-----------------------------o
| Sign Relation L(2) |
o---------o---------o---------o
| Object | Sign | Interp |
o---------o---------o---------o
| Rover | "Dog" | [Dog] |
| Specs | "Dog" | [Dog] |
| Trixy | "Dog" | [Dog] |
o---------o---------o---------o
SR: Ok. I would like to follow along with my notation ... hence:
SR: http://robustai.net/mentography/awbreySignRelation.gif
From my peirce-spective this looks like a genuine improvement!
In particular, the appearance of degree-3 nodes in your graph,
to wit, the nodes labeled "L1", "L2", "L3", is a good sign to me.
SR: However I note that I end up seeing a catagory error in the diagram.
The arrows that I must draw in the graph based solely from your table,
above, seem wrong. The arrows labeled object from the sign relationship
instances should all be drawn with their sharp end on the box labeled
"Objects that are dogs" rather than to the individual dogs as objects.
Otherwise it seems to me that you are mixing signs for plurals with
signs for individuals.
No, that's okay, but it does raise an issue
that maybe we have come far enough to tackle.
The sign relation L(2) is what what we might call an "object sign relation",
in the sense that some people use when they talk about an "object language".
In other words, the whole sign relation L(2) is an object of our discussion,
and we have it so well pinned down at this point in the dissecting tray that
one might well call it a "formaldehyded sign relation", or more prosaically,
a fully formalized object of discussion. Of course, in order to discuss it
we are obliged to use all sorts of additional verbiage and video-montage that
neither of us would be able to completely vivisect all the rest of lives, even
if it we should be foolhardy enough to be willing to try. And the several total
or the unseveral sum of all of that extra significating is what I usually describe
as our "meta sign relation", though I'm sure you'll find that usage differs in this,
as it does in most every regard.
Now, with respect to this somewhat blurry distinction that arises
from the precipitation of an object system out of its meta-liquor,
the domains and elements of our focal sign relation can be seen
to enjoy slightly different statuses with respect to each other.
Thus it ought to be clear that we are always working on a semantic platform
that is at least one story higher than the object system we are discussing.
Really, nothing but signs can appear on the page or on the silver screen,
and so we are using the signs "Rover", "Specs", "Trixy" to mention these
three dogs of our real or imaginary acquaintances, but those signs are
not part of the object sign relation -- they are parts of the vast,
unmapped meta sign relation that we are using to talk about L(2).
Yikes! Something burning in the oven ...
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤