Vinicius,
I was thinking of doing a transcription of the whole thing but wanted to make sure first that it hadn't been done already. But I guess if it had, IUPUI would know that . so I'll do that this weekend, because I do find it a very interesting MS. I haven't yet read through the follow-up posts from others on this, but on our point of disagreement - I see what you mean here: "the critical point is when we think the weather-cock is functional while it is not. In THIS case, it will be an index but without involving an icon. It will then convey no information and become a false proposition." But to me, a proposition that conveys no information is not false. In this case the interpretant would be false because the indexicality is broken: the physical effect of the wind on the weathercock is not controlling its iconicity. So you could just as well say that it's an icon that gives false information because its indexicality is not functioning as we expect it to. >From that point of view it's a misrepresentation; but if we should have noticed that it sticks, then it's a misinterpretation on our part. Either way, the principle holds that if an index involves no icon, it conveys no information. It's the combination of iconicity and indexicality (just as it's the logical product of depth and breadth) that constitutes information. Or that's what I say, and I'm not sure whether you're saying the same thing or not. gary f. From: Vinicius Romanini [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 3-Apr-14 8:09 PM To: [email protected] 1 Subject: Fwd: [PEIRCE-L] de Waal Seminar: Chapter 5, Semeiotics, or the doctrine of signs Gary F., list Thanks for transcribing this excerpt. I wish I had the time to transcript the whole MS. If you do or find a transcription, please send me! You comment on my claim: What he says here about the weathercock is: 1) If it works properly, it is an index involving an icon, and a proposition. 2) If it sticks and fails to turn, it is a false proposition; unless 3) it is known to be nonfunctional, in which case it "sinks to a mere icon, at best." So if we know that the weathercock doesn't work properly, it is neither false nor an index! But Peirce finishes your excerpt saying: "It is not essential to an index that it should thus involve an icon. Only, if it does not, it will convey no information." (Peirce, MS 7) V: Certainly, if we know that the weather-cock is broken, then there would be no point in assuming it is an index. Then it is just an icon, like a weather-cock exposed in a museum. But the critical point is when we think the weather-cock is functional while it is not. In THIS case, it will be an index but without involving an icon. It will then convey no information and become a false proposition. That's what I meant to say: even if no interpreter ever sees it, its representation of the wind is already false - unless the eventual interpreter KNOWS it is broken. But in this last case, it is not even an index anymore. Vinicius
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
