I have to admit I'm with Jon in this discussion, at least insofar as the
statement:
"Peirce simply said that a Dicisign is a sign which is involved twice
with one and the same
object: 1) it refers to the object (P's generalization of the Subject
part of a
proposition; 2) it describes that object (P's generalization of the
Predicate)."
makes me wary. While it is consistent, as far as it goes, with a
triadic/diagrammatic interpretation of propositions, it seems susceptible
to those dyadic interpretations of propositions that have so bedeviled
modern interpretations of Peirce.
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Gary Fuhrman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ben, thanks, you saved me the trouble of asking Jon to explain his cryptic
> post.
>
> John, the bit you quoted is my wording of that part of Peirce's analysis
> (around EP2:282) which is basic to Frederik's thesis, which is considerably
> more complex than that (which is why we need a months-long seminar to deal
> with it). Whether Frederik would approve of my exact wording I don't know,
> but I also don't know what your objection to it is. Perhaps you can
> clarify. By the way, have you read any of NP yet?
>
> gary f.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benjamin Udell [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 2-Sep-14 10:56 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re:Natural Propositions
>
> Jon,
>
> Why not be a bit more specific? You know that Peirce starting in 1903
> Syllabus "Nomenclature and Division of Triadic Relations" says that some
> dicisigns (a.k.a. dicent signs) are symbols and some dicisigns instead are
> indices. Is your argument that every dicisign incorporates a symbol (I
> can't remember Peirce's view on this)? - and that, therefore, every
> dicisign is symbolic, even if not every dicisign is a symbol? In that case
> your objection seems a bit strong since it would be focused on Gary F.'s
> using the adjective "symbolic" rather than the noun "symbol."
>
> But maybe your objection consists in something else. Why leave people
> guessing?
>
> Best, Ben
>
> On 9/2/2014 10:30 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
>
> > Re: Gary Fuhrman
> > At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13838
> >
> > "I think your book will change all that, showing as it does a dicisign
> > — that is, a sign complete enough to be true — must involve both
> > iconic and indexical components, but does not have to be symbolic."
> >
> > Gary,
> >
> > That statement is the very epitome of the retrograde motion that has
> > occurred in the understanding of Peirce's logic and semiotics in
> > recent years. If that really is Frederik's thesis then you have just
> > saved me the trouble of an utterly futile discussion.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > Gary Fuhrman wrote:
>
>
>
> -----------------------------
> 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
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------
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 .
