Jeff, List: To answer your corrected questions ...
1. Yes, icon/index/symbol is always based on the relation between sign and dynamical object. 2. No, icon/index/symbol is not a classification of signs that includes the relation of sign to immediate object. I am not going to be able to provide specific references regarding internal vs. external; to be honest, I am not sure whether that terminological distinction comes directly from Peirce's own writings or from the secondary literature. However, my understanding is that the trichotomy for the immediate object/interpretant itself is interchangeable with the trichotomy for its relation to the sign; it is precisely this lack of a separate relation that makes them immediate, rather than dynamical. In fact, that letter to Lady Welby is exactly what I had in mind when I mentioned the "earlier" classification of the immediate interpretant as feelings/experiences/thoughts (vs. hypothetic/categorical/relative). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard < [email protected]> wrote: > Hello Jon, List, > > Quick responses and a further question. > > J.S.: No, icon/index/symbol actually corresponds to the relation between > sign and dynamical OBJECT. > J.D.: Yes, my apologies for the error. I meant to say: is the icon is a > class of signs that is always based on the relation between sign and > dynamical object? Or, is it also a classification of signs that includes > the relation of sign to immediate object as well? > > J.S.: Peirce did not propose separate trichotomies for the relations > between sign and immediate object or between sign and immediate > interpretant, presumably because both of those are INTERNAL to the sign. > J.D.: Can you point me to some places where Peirce explains what is > internal and what is external to a sign? I'd like to take a look. Note: > while I agree that Peirce did not offer a set of terms for classifying > signs based on the relation of sign to immediate object or the relation of > sign to immediate interpretant, he does talk about kinds of signs that are > based on those relations. Here is what he says a letter to Lady Welby. > > In respect to its immediate object a sign may be > 1. a sign of a quality > 2. of an existent > 3. or of a law. (CP 8.336) > > Relation of sign to immediate interpretant: > 1. those interpretable in qualities of feelings or appearances > 2. those interpretable in actual experiences > 3. those interpretable in other signs of the same kind in infinite series. > (CP 8.339) > > What aren't these included in the list of the most important kinds of > relations that we need to consider when classifying signs. Even if they > are not the most important, what light do they shed on Peirce's larger > classificatory system for signs and sign relations? > > --Jeff > > Jeffrey Downard > Associate Professor > Department of Philosophy > Northern Arizona University > (o) 928 523-8354 >
----------------------------- 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 .
