Peircean Semiotics and Triadic Sign Relations

[Jon Awbrey]

Peircean Semiotics and Triadic Sign Relations • 1
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/08/20/peircean-semiotics-and-triadic-sign-relations-1-a/

All,

As a “guide for the perplexed”, at least when it comes to semiotics,
I'll use this thread to collect a budget of resources I think have
served to clarify the topic in the past.

By way of a first offering, let me recommend the following most excellent paper,
which I can say with all due modesty in light of the fact all its excellence is
due to my most excellent co‑author.

Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1995), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”,
Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15(1), pp. 40–52.
• https://web.archive.org/web/20001210162300/http://chss.montclair.edu/inquiry/fall95/awbrey.html
• https://www.pdcnet.org/inquiryct/content/inquiryct_1995_0015_0001_0040_0052
• https://www.academia.edu/1266493/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inquiry
• https://www.academia.edu/57812482/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inquiry

Regards,

Jon

cc: https://www.academia.edu/community/lQ99jq
cc: https://mathstodon.xyz/@Inquiry/112996904263199545

[Jon Awbrey]

Peircean Semiotics and Triadic Sign Relations • 2
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/08/22/peircean-semiotics-and-triadic-sign-relations-2-a/

All,

When I returned to graduate school for the third time around,
this time in systems engineering, I had in mind integrating my
long‑standing projects investigating the dynamics of information,
inquiry, learning, and reasoning, viewing each as a process whose
trajectory evolves over time through the medium which gives it
concrete embodiment, namely, a triadic sign relation.

Up until that time I don't believe I'd ever given much thought to
sign relations that had anything smaller than infinite domains of
objects, signs, and interpretant signs. Countably infinite domains
are what come natural in logic, since that is the norm for the formal
languages it uses. Continuous domains come first to mind when turning
to physical systems, despite the fact that systems with a discrete or
quantized character often enter the fray.

So it came as a bit of a novelty to me when my advisor, following
the motto of engineers the world over to “Keep It Simple, Stupid!” —
affectionately known by the acronym KISS — asked me to construct the
simplest non‑trivial finite example of a sign relation I could possibly
come up with. The outcome of that exercise I wrote up in the following
primer on sign relations.

Inquiry Driven Systems • Sign Relations : A Primer
• https://oeis.org/wiki/Inquiry_Driven_Systems_%E2%80%A2_Part_1#Sign_Relations_:_A_Primer

Inquiry Driven Systems • Semiotic Equivalence Relations
• https://oeis.org/wiki/Inquiry_Driven_Systems_%E2%80%A2_Part_1#Semiotic_Equivalence_Relations

Regards,

Jon

cc: https://www.academia.edu/community/VX2kj9
cc: https://mathstodon.xyz/@Inquiry/112996904263199545

[Jon Awbrey]

Peircean Semiotics and Triadic Sign Relations • 3
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/08/23/peircean-semiotics-and-triadic-sign-relations-3-a/

All,

Having labored mightily to bring out a new edition of my primer
on sign relations, including material on the pivotal concept of
semiotic equivalence relations, I thought it worth the candle
to post a notice of the new version here.

Sign Relations
• https://oeis.org/wiki/Sign_relation

Semiotic Equivalence Relations
• https://oeis.org/wiki/Sign_relation#Semiotic_equivalence_relations

Regards,

Jon

cc: https://www.academia.edu/community/V0YjR0
cc: https://mathstodon.xyz/@Inquiry/112996904263199545