ONT Re: What Is Information That A Sign May Bear It?
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
WIS Discussion. Note 11
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
FK = Frances Catherine Kelly
JA = Jon Awbrey
Re: WIS Discussion 10. http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg05309.html
Copied here:
FK: What is basically being driven at here by me is that the
literal or written notation of logical relations signifies
a polarity of correlates in a ground that is identified.
JA: Can you give me examples of things that fall under the following descriptions?
1.1. "literal or written notation"
1.2. "logical relations"
1.3. "literal or written notation of logical relations"
2.1. "a polarity of correlates"
2.2. "a ground that is identified"
2.3. "a polarity of correlates in a ground that is identified"
JA: Can you show me how your example of a thing that
falls under description 1.3 has the property
that it "signifies" some example of a thing
that falls under description 2.3?
FK: The information in the ground of the relation
here seems dyadic, as any such relation will be, ...
JA: Why do you say that "any such relation" will be dyadic?
What are the assumptions about "such" that would cause
you to assert this?
Frances,
I am looking for some answer to the questions that I asked last time.
FK: This is not to be evasive, but since my (unfamiliar?) jargon is slowing debate
on the original topic of what information is that a sign may bear it, allow us
for comfortable economy to substitute it with common words in ordinary language.
FK: As for examples of notations that might fall under
my neological descriptions, there are several posted
by listers including yourself on the Peirce List going
back about a year on the themes of relations, relatives,
identities, teridentities, and others. These would serve
our purposes.
1.1. "literal or written notation"
The notations that I've seen before are rather diverse.
It would be helpful to settle on some concrete examples.
1.2. "logical relations"
Though I have a sense of what I'd mean if I wrote "logical relations",
I don't have a sense of what you mean when you write that, so I could
still use a little bit of clarification as to what you mean by that.
1.3. "literal or written notation of logical relations"
That leaves the composite clause still up in the air,
not to mention the rest of the questions.
FK: My curiosity remains on your original claim that
when speculative information in a sign that is given
uncontrolled to sense is reduced to its logical atom
in mind, to decrease ambiguity from the outside world
and to increase certainty that might allow thinkers to
deal more assuredly with that world, the information is
thereby transformed into a syntaxic construct wherein
its formal subsigns refer to other formal subsigns,
instead of to objects external to those subsigns
or that construct.
Can you tell me specifically what I wrote that you interpret by
means of the phrases: (1) "speculative information in a sign",
(2) "given uncontrolled to sense", (3) "reduced to its logical
atom in mind"? I think that I can recognize traces of my story
in the clause about decreasing ambiguity to deal more assuredly
with the world. However, I still need to ask how you got from
something I wrote to what you wrote here: (4) "the information
is thereby transformed into a syntaxic construct wherein its
formal subsigns refer to other formal subsigns, instead of
to objects external to those subsigns or that construct".
When you write "subsigns", do you mean (a) syntactic components of
compound signs, or (b) subclasses in some classification of signs?
FK: This would make the sign situation a polemic relation of
logical subsigns and a 2-adic structure, which defies the
Peircean requirement that any sign situation be 3-adic and
refer to sign-objects other than the sign-vehicles themselves
for some interpretant sign-effects.
Can you give me a concrete example of this "2-adic structure"?
FK: In the mean time, my cryptic vocabulary will be cleaned up,
and a deeper search of Peircean passages on the topic will
be sought. Your leads to archived messages by the way are
much appreciated.
FK: On my crudely stating any relation as "such"
by the way, the intent is simply to mean any
relation is a 2-adic structure in my opinion, ...
To say that "any relation is a 2-adic structure"
sounds just plain wrong to me. Can you say why
you believe this?
FK: On my crudely stating any relation as "such" by the way, the intent is
simply to mean any relation is a 2-adic structure in my opinion, yet
one that has some vague "semantic" object between the two "syntactic"
poles that together lay in a common "semantic" ground, and one that
is identified by some "pragmatic" agent external to the relation.
It is this agent that tends to correctly and necessarily make
any relation a 3-adic construct, which satisfies Peircean
semiotic criteria, but ironically defies the 2-adic nature
of all relations.
FK: This is the thorn for me when reducing informative grammatic signs
to purely syntaxic situations. The broader implication here is
that grammatical syntax in symbolic logic would be held as a
1-adic or 2-adic construct. My tentative solution for any
identified relation is to make its "ground" one pole and
the "agent" the other pole, thereby yielding from an
explicit and overt trident an implied covert duality.
It also seems that in the absence of an identifying
agent external to the ground and the relation,
that there can be no relation, but only
separate unrelated sign-vehicles.)
Again, you refer in passing to the "2-adic nature of all relations".
Perhaps it would be best to focus a while on this particular "thorn"
of a notion, which I can assure you is quite lacking in justification.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
http://www.cs.bsu.edu/homepages/mighty/history.html
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o