Jon, yes, that’s pretty much what I was thinking (can’t speak for John S.) I think Jon Awbrey and John Sowa are looking at it from the perspective of the use of signs for inquiry, while Peirce in passages like this is placing more emphasis on the autonomous life of signs themselves. But these are two sides of the same coin, which I think is the point of Peirce’s recurring references to Emerson’s sphinx.
Also, I think that in addition to conventionality, what distinguishes the symbol from the icon is the involvement of the indexical in it. Especially in the proposition, which for Peirce is the paradigmatic symbol. (Later he would also classify the proposition as a dicisign, and his reference to “mixed signs” in c.1895 might be heading in that direction.) Gary f. From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 28-Mar-17 10:56 To: Gary Fuhrman <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth Gary F., List: Thanks, that is very helpful, although I find it interesting that Peirce made no mention of indices in that passage. Elsewhere he stated, "A diagram is a representamen which is predominantly an icon of relations and is aided to be so by conventions. Indices are also more or less used" (CP 4.418; 1903). So diagrams are mainly icons that embody the significant relations among the parts of their objects, but they also involve both symbols (i.e., conventions) and indices in order to do so. From that standpoint, the mere icon (image?) "grows" into a diagram with the addition of symbols and indices, and then "grows" even more by being supplemented or otherwise transformed in accordance with the rules of the representational system in which it is a "lawful construction" (JFS). Regards, Jon S. On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:21 AM, <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Jon Alan, you asked: [[ What I was really asking about is the notion that "every kind of sign begins with an image (icon), and every sign constructed from other signs is a diagram." Does this come from Peirce, or is it your own insight? ]] I wonder if it might come indirectly (with the addition of John’s own insight) from CP 2.302, c.1895: [[[ Symbols grow. They come into being by development out of other signs, particularly from icons, or from mixed signs partaking of the nature of icons and symbols. We think only in signs. These mental signs are of mixed nature; the symbol-parts of them are called concepts. If a man makes a new symbol, it is by thoughts involving concepts. So it is only out of symbols that a new symbol can grow. Omne symbolum de symbolo. A symbol, once in being, spreads among the peoples. In use and in experience, its meaning grows. Such words as force, law, wealth, marriage, bear for us very different meanings from those they bore to our barbarous ancestors. The symbol may, with Emerson's sphynx, say to man, Of thine eye I am eyebeam. ]]] This antedates Peirce’s detailed classification of sign types other than the icon/index/symbol trichotomy, but I think there’s a strong connection between what he refers to as “symbols” here and what John refers to as “diagrams.” Both words are being used very broadly, and both grow (or ‘are constructed’) from icons. Gary f.
----------------------------- 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 .
