List, Frederik, Jon: Pure Index? Pure Icon?
Mysterious to me outside of the legisign commitment. Within the domain of chemistry, Lavoisier's Principle asserts a legisign concerning the concept of purity that CSP was certainly aware of. It is the starting point for the natural propositions of chemical sciences. Frederik reference to the conic section is pure Peircian. Make no sense at all to me, other than to call to mind that a cut of an mathematical object depends on how one chooses to place the cut with respect to totality of the geometry of the object - leading to various geometric objects. Nothing intrinsically impure about a circle, an ellipse, a parabola, .... or any other geometric object, is there? >From the view of the definitions, triad and trichotomy differ in meaning by >the distinction between counting (1,2 and 3) and the mental action of >separating a whole into exactly three identical parts. From a logical perspective, that is, of propositions, counting is applicable to any list of indices while the action of separating a list into a trichotomy is possible if and only if the list is composed of exactly 3n objects. The origin of Frederik's assertion: > Thus, isolated icons and indices exist, but only as limit cases of symbols - remains mathematically curious to me. Cheers Jerry On Oct 2, 2014, at 7:07 AM, Frederik Stjernfelt wrote: > Dear Jon, lists > Peirce use the concept "degenerate" in his sign theory in analogy to the > geometric sense of the term.. Referring to conic sections, certain sections > are generic (hyperbolas, ellipses) while other sections are degenerate > because corresponding to non-generic cases where one or more variables vanish > (parabolas, circles, crossing lines, point). Thus, degenerate cases only > exist as limit cases of generic ones - (but there is nothing "impure" in > being a circle …). Thus, isolated icons and indices exist, but only as limit > cases of symbols - of which full, general propositions constitute the center > category (this is paraphrasing the Kaina Stoikheia from memory). > Best > F > > Den 27/09/2014 kl. 06.00 skrev Jon Awbrey <[email protected]>: > >> Pure Icon and Pure Index. What in the world could those be? >> And how could a "degenerate" something be a "pure" anything? >> And while we're at it, must there also be pure symbols, too? > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
