Joseph, Tom, List,
Any thing at all (an embedding context, a moment in time, an active situation,
or whatever it may be) that serves to connect an index with its object may do
that without regard to its possible service as a sign in some other connection.
So it's not so much the existential nexus or point of connection being trivially
a sign as its contemplated status as a sign being irrelevant to its function as
a connector.
Regards,
Jon
Tom Gollier wrote:
Joseph, List:
I haven't seen an answer to your inquiry, but I, like you, would be
interested in what would be trivial and non-trivial when it comes to an
index.
Tom
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 3:35 AM, Joseph Brenner <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>
wrote:
Dear All,
I have not commented on the recent exchanges as I was awaiting my copy of
Frederik's book, just received. But there is one phrase he uses in
this note which I think is worth noting for discussion and future
reference: "an index relies on some actual connections (read: natural
interactions) which are either not in themselves signs (or only trivially
so)". A notion of triviality is essential here, whether or not this is in
relation to establishing an index. For situations where the latter is
true, sign-talk is superfetatory. We now need to distinguish between three
states of affairs: those in which signs are 1) non-trivial; 2) trivial
and 3) non-existent. My rationale for doing this would be to more clearly
delineate the primitive nature of actual connections *vs. *signs. But
perhaps this is done elsewhere in the book . . .
Best,
Joseph
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Frederik Stjernfelt <stj...@hum.ku.dk>
*To:* biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee ; Peirce List <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu>
*Sent:* Monday, September 15, 2014 10:46 PM
*Subject:* [biosemiotics:6847] Re: Natural Propositions: like
Dear Mara, lists -
Certainly it is through an index that WE know about the cause of the
crater.
But the physical process itself, the meteor creating the crater, is not an
index. The index relies upon causal, purposive and other actual connections
which are not, in themselves, signs (or only trivially so).
Best
F
Den 15/09/2014 kl. 19.09 skrev Mara Woods <mara.wo...@gmail.com>
Perhaps saying that it is an index does add one thing. It says that
instead of knowing that the crater was caused by a meteor through direct
perception of the event, we know it because we inferred it based on what
was left behind.
Mara Woods
--
academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
