ONT Re: What Is Information That A Sign May Bear It? -- Discussion
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
WIS Discussion. Note 7
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
FK = Frances Catherine Kelly
Re: WIS Discussion 6. http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg05300.html
In: WIS. http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/thrd19.html#04317
Cf: Sign Relations. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11187.html
Frances,
Continuing with the remainder of your last message.
FK: Since any group of signs that is identified (or teridentified?) as a relation
must be a dyadic duality in structure with two poles, then such a sign state
cannot be 3-adic and be a relation at the same instance. For a relation to
be a sign or "sign-situation" however it must be tridential and trichotic.
Seemingly, a relation must be identified to be a relation, and identity
hence means a third category added to the two poles. My own feeling
here is that any identified relation will be a "virtual" duality in
that one pole will be the ground (sign-form/sign-object) and the
other pole will be the agent (sign-effect or interpretant?) who
identifies the relation. This implied dyadicity constructed
from and existing as an explicit trichotomy is presented as
a polarity (ground+agent) merely to make the relation seem
dyadic. Your suggestion on how the pure information born
of a raw sign is handled logically in mind as a dyad of
course may mean something else.
Let me take this one step at a time.
What do mean by saying that "any group of signs that
is identified (or teridentified?) as a relation must
be a dyadic duality in structure with two poles"?
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
http://www.cs.bsu.edu/homepages/mighty/history.html
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o