[port-peer-review] Janos Sarbo -- "Practical Bearings of Peirce's Maxim"
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤ (01)
janos, (02)
to begin, let me recommend that you consider
the "industrial strength" sign definition as
being the most definitive of all. i patched
together a couple of variants from NEM: (03)
| Logic is 'formal semiotic'. A sign is something, 'A', which brings
| something, 'B', its 'interpretant' sign, determined or created by it,
| into the same sort of correspondence (or a lower implied sort) with
| something, 'C', its 'object', as that in which itself stands to 'C'.
| This definition no more involves any reference to human thought than
| does the definition of a line as the place within which a particle lies
| during a lapse of time. (Peirce, NEM 4, 54).
|
| It is from this definition, together with a definition of "formal",
| that I deduce mathematically the principles of logic. I also make
| a historical review of all the definitions and conceptions of logic,
| and show, not merely that my definition is no novelty, but that my
| non-psychological conception of logic has 'virtually' been quite
| generally held, though not generally recognized. (Peirce, NEM 4, 21). (04)
my additional discussion is here: (05)
http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg02400.html (06)
indeed, for many years, i wondered that peirce had never
bothered to define such an important concept as that of
a sign, you see, i always took it as just obvious that
those other "definitions" where definitions in the
informal sense only, more properly regarded as
characterizations, descriptions, expositions.
and it was not until i ran across a copy of
NEM that i first said "aha, there it is",
seeing what i could clearly recognize as
a real definition of a sign relation.
that is just the way i see it. (07)
tijtwisi, (08)
jon (09)
to be continuous ... (010)
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤ (011)