Jeff, List: Much of what you wrote in your last message is above my pay grade, but one comment warrants a brief response.
JD: Gary F. says that qualisigns are always icons, while you say that the icons are always based on the relation of the sign to the dynamical interpretant. This is the second time in this exchange that you have incorrectly associated icon/index/symbol with the relation of sign to dynamical INTERPRETANT. Again, icon/index/symbol is based on the relation of sign to dynamical OBJECT. It was probably a simple mistake both times, but obviously it makes a huge difference. Presented/urged/submitted (or suggestive/imperative/indicative) is based on the relation of sign to dynamical INTERPRETANT. In any case, Gary F. and I are both simply repeating things that Peirce himself wrote--qualisigns are always icons, and icons are always based on the relation of sign to dynamical object. In other words, a qualisign is always and only an icon; it can never be an index or a symbol. This is because a possible can only determine a possible, and the trichotomy of the sign itself logically precedes the trichotomy of the relation between sign and dynamical object. Along with the fact that a necessitant can only be determined by a necessitant, this is why three trichotomies produce only 10 sign classes, rather than 27; and why ten trichotomies produce only 66 sign classes, rather than 59,049. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
----------------------------- 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 .
