Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Relation Theory • Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Relation Theory • Discussion 12
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/02/24/sign-relations-triadic-relations-relation-theory-discussion-12/

Re: Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Relation Theory • 1
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/02/18/sign-relations-triadic-relations-relation-theory-1-a/

All,

A note from a longtime correspondent points out a search of the
available texts turns up no use of the plural form “semiotics”
by Peirce and just one place where he uses the plural form
“Semeiotics”. That prompts me to make the following excuse
for my use or abuse of Peirce's terms, as the case may be.

Peirce has always been one of my chief resources in the quest
to understand how logic and math and science work. There is
much to be gained by getting his distinctive ideas across to
active practitioners in those fields. In doing that I find
it better to tweak the words a bit, if that's what it takes
to preserve the idea, than to hallow the words at the risk
of losing the idea.

As far as semiotics by any name goes, what seems to work best
without too much clanging in modern ears is parsing “semiotics”
in line with words like “mathematics” and “cybernetics”, plus
we can now use the singular form as the adjective “semiotic”.

Regards,

Jon

cc: https://www.academia.edu/community/lJkvgx
cc: https://mathstodon.xyz/@Inquiry/111052869574911676