Hello,
We had short technical hiccups with the mailing list and I had to
unsubscribe and resubscribe all members.
The positive thing is that delivery to gmail and some other providers is
now working again.
Best regards
Björn
Functional Logic • Inquiry and Analogy • Discussion 1
• http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2023/07/06/functional-logic-inquiry-and-analo…
Re: Functional Logic • Inquiry and Analogy • 8
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2023/06/28/functional-logic-inquiry-and-anal…
All,
Post 8 used the following Figure to illustrate
Dewey's example of a simple inquiry process.
Dewey's “Sign of Rain” Example
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/deweys-sign-of-rain-…
John Mingers shared the following observations.
<QUOTE JM:>
Liked the example — a couple of questions/comments.
1. In the diagram you have included with the Triadic sign,
although with dotted lines, an interpretive agent.
Now I thought that Peirce was a bit cagey about this.
Wasn't he clear that the interpretant was not to be
identified with an actual interpreter? What is
your thinking on this?
2. I do agree that there needs to be an interpreter
but does it need to be a person? Surely it could
be any organism that can interact with relations?
</QUOTE>
The cool air is something our hero interprets as a sign of rain and
his thought of rain is an interpretant sign of the very same object.
The relation between the interpretant sign and the interpretive agent
is clear enough as far as a beginning level of description goes. But
a fully pragmatic, semiotic, and system-theoretic account will demand
a more fine-grained analysis of what goes on in the inquiry process.
Speaking very roughly, an interpreter is any agent or system —
animal, vegetable, or mineral — which actualizes or embodies
a triadic sign relation.
Several passages from Peirce will help to flesh out the
bare abstractions. I'll begin collecting them on the
linked blog page and discuss them further as we proceed.
Regards,
Jon
