Cf: Systems of Interpretation • 2
Let's start as simply as possible. The following Figure
is typical of many I have used to illustrate sign relations
from the time I first began studying Peirce's theory of signs.
Figure 2. An Elementary Sign Relation
The above variant comes from a paper Susan Awbrey and I presented at
a conference in 1999, a revised version of which was published in 2001.
As the drafter of that drawing I can speak with authority about the
artist's intentions in drawing it and also about the conventions of
interpretation forming the matrix of its conception and delivery.
Just by way of refreshing my own memory, here is how we set it up —
Figure 2 represents an “elementary sign relation”. It is a single
transaction taking place among 3 entities, the object o, the sign s,
and the interpretant sign i, the association of which is typically
represented by means of the ordered triple (o, s, i).
One of the interpretive conventions implied in that setup is hallowed
by long tradition, going back to the earliest styles of presentation in
mathematics. In it one draws a figure intended as “representative” of
many figures. Regarded as a concrete drawing the figure is naturally
imperfect, individual, peculiar, and special but it's meant to be taken
purely as a representative of its class — generic, ideal, and typical.
That is the main convention of interpretation which goes into giving
diagrams and figures their significant power.
Conceptual Barriers to Creating Integrative Universities
Organizations of Learning or Learning Organizations:
The Challenge of Creating Integrative Universities