Helmut, you ask,
Have I understood correctly: --Embodiment means, that it is a complete triadic sign, eg.: (1), qualisign, is not embodied, (1.1), iconic qualisign, is not completely embodied either, but (1.1.1), rhematic iconic qualisign, is embodied? No, that can’t be it, because any qualisign has to be rhematic and iconic. Since its mode of being is that of a logical possibility, a qualisign has to be embodied in something actual or existing (perhaps a sinsign) in order to act as a sign. Just as the quality of redness has to be embodied in something red in order to be perceived as red. That’s my guess. --Degenerate is everything that is not all thirdness, so the only sign that is not degenerate at all, is the argument? I think it’s possible that the argument, being also symbol and legisign, could be regarded as fully genuine so that all other sign types would be considered more or less degenerate. But I don’t know of anyplace where Peirce says exactly that, and I don’t see him comparing sign types across trichotomies. — However we apply it, we have to base Peirce’s concept of degeneracy on the conic section (see EP2:545 if you have it). A straight line is a degenerate form of the parabola, and so degenerate as a conic section; but a straight line considered as a moving point (for instance) is not degenerate. Likewise, Firstness is not degenerate in itself, nor is Secondness. But considered as a triadic relation, which can be quite complex, something as simple as a mere likeness of two correlates is degenerate, compared to, say, the relation between a symbol, its object, and its interpretant. Gary f. Best! Helmut
----------------------------- 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 .
