Re: ONT Re: Extension x Comprehension = Information
John,
Would you relate this excerpt of Charles S. Peirce to the referent section
of the CG standard http://users.bestweb.net/~sowa/cg/cgstandw.htm#Header_36?
And also to the interpretations of many-sorted first-order logic
<http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/suo/email/msg01792.html>?
Robert E. Kent
rekent@ontologos.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Awbrey" <jawbrey@oakland.edu>
To: "Arisbe" <arisbe@stderr.org>; "Gdsemiocom" <gdsemiocom@univ-perp.fr>;
"Ontology" <ontology@ieee.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 7:36 PM
Subject: ONT Re: Extension x Comprehension = Information
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> | For this purpose, I must call your attention to
> | the differences there are in the manner in which
> | different representations stand for their objects.
> |
> | In the first place there are likenesses or copies -- such as
> | 'statues', 'pictures', 'emblems', 'hieroglyphics', and the like.
> | Such representations stand for their objects only so far as they
> | have an actual resemblance to them -- that is agree with them in
> | some characters. The peculiarity of such representations is that
> | they do not determine their objects -- they stand for anything
> | more or less; for they stand for whatever they resemble and
> | they resemble everything more or less.
> |
> | The second kind of representations are such as are set up
> | by a convention of men or a decree of God. Such are 'tallies',
> | 'proper names', &c. The peculiarity of these 'conventional signs'
> | is that they represent no character of their objects. Likenesses
> | denote nothing in particular; 'conventional signs' connote nothing
> | in particular.
> |
> | The third and last kind of representations are 'symbols' or general
> | representations. They connote attributes and so connote them as to
> | determine what they denote. To this class belong all 'words' and
> | all 'conceptions'. Most combinations of words are also symbols.
> | A proposition, an argument, even a whole book may be, and
> | should be, a single symbol.
> |
> | CSP, CE 1, pages 467-468.
> |
> | Charles Sanders Peirce,
> |"The Logic of Science, or, Induction and Hypothesis",
> | Lowell Institute Lectures of 1866, pages 357-504 in:
> |
> |'Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition',
> |'Volume 1, 1857-1866', Peirce Edition Project,
> | Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, 1982.
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤