Jon (and Jon),
J.A.S., your post quoting “New Elements” makes much more sense that the other
Jon’s claim that “icons and indices are species under the genus” of symbol,
which I’m pretty sure Peirce would never say. The point that Peirce makes in
his “Nomenclature and Divisions of Triadic Relations” and elsewhere is that
symbols can involve indices, and indices can involve icons — indeed symbols
must involve both icons and indices in order to convey any information — but
icons do not involve indices nor do indices involve symbols, and this is what
makes them “degenerate” relative to the symbol. They are certainly not species
of the genus symbol. TRI again, Jon A.
As for which type of sign is logically “primordial,” I think the key to the
Peircean answer to that question is in his assertion that “a symbol alone is
indeterminate.” Now, any symbol which has a real object has been determined by
that object, to some extent, so clearly the “primordial” symbol is not one of
those. So the time before time is also prior to any information or
transformation. But that’s as far as I’m prepared to go into cosmology or the
universe of pre-reality.
Gary f.
} Perfect activity leaves no track behind it; perfect speech is like a
jade-worker whose tool leaves no mark. [Tao Te Ching 27 (Waley)] {
<http://gnusystems.ca/wp/> http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ Turning Signs gateway
From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 28-Mar-17 17:42
To: Jeffrey Brian Downard <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth
Jeff, Jon A., List:
Perhaps "New Elements" (1904) can shed some helpful light on the matters that
have come up recently in this thread.
CSP: A diagram is an icon or schematic image embodying the meaning of a
general predicate; and from the observation of this icon we are supposed to
construct a new general predicate. (EP 2:303)
This seems consistent with the comment by John S. about a universal/general
being the specification of a diagram.
CSP: Of signs there are two different degenerate forms. But though I give them
this disparaging name, they are of the greatest utility, and serve purposes
that genuine signs could not. The more degenerate of the two forms (as I look
upon it) is the icon ... The other form of degenerate sign is to be termed an
index ... We now come to the genuine sign, for which I propose the technical
designation symbol ... (EP 2:306-307)
This affirms that only symbols are genuine signs, while icons and indices are
degenerate.
CSP: ... the significations of symbols have various grades of directness up to
the limit of being themselves their own significations. An icon is significant
with absolute directness of a character which it embodies; and every symbol
refers more or less indirectly to an icon. An index is directly denotative of a
real object with which it is in reaction. Every symbol refers more or less
indirectly to a real object through an index. (EP 2:320)
This affirms that all symbols involve both icons and indices.
CSP: If we are to explain the universe, we must assume that there was in the
beginning a state of things in which there was nothing, no reaction and no
quality, no matter, no consciousness, no space and no time, but just nothing at
all. Not determinately nothing. For that which is determinately not A supposes
the being of A in some mode. Utter indetermination. But a symbol alone is
indeterminate. Therefore, Nothing, the indeterminate of the absolute beginning,
is a symbol. That is the way in which the beginning of things can alone be
understood. (EP 2:322)
As observed by the PEP editors in an endnote, "This statement brings to mind
Peirce's favorite Evangelist: 'In the beginning was the Word' (John 1:1)." It
seems consistent with the comment by Jon A. about symbols being primordial
relative to icons and indices--not to mention the entire universe, which Peirce
described elsewhere as "a vast representamen, a great symbol of God's purpose";
and "every symbol must have, organically attached to it, its Indices of
Reactions and its Icons of Qualities" (EP 2:193-194). So it also strikes me as
another data point in favor of interpreting 3ns as primordial relative to 1ns
and 2ns in Peirce's considered cosmology.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt <http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt>
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt>
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
Jon A, List,
You say:
1. "one of the consequences of Triadic Relation Irreducibility (TRI)" is that
symbols "are the genus of all signs, while icons and indices are species under
that genus."
2. "Thus symbols...do not in the first instance grow from icons so much as
icons crystallize from the primordial matrix of symbols."
I must admit, that my own understanding of these matters of which is prior to
what and in what sense is somewhat vague. Part of my own lack of clarity about
the character of genuine and degenerate cases of relations between objects,
signs and interpretants its that I don't have a clear grasp of the character of
the key relations, including the manner in which one of these is determined by
another. What is more, I'm not clear on the relation between involution and
evolution when it comes to signs and our understanding of them. Let me ask a
couple of quick questions:
a. I assume that you are asserting (1) and (2) are the truth of the matter. Are
you also asserting that it is Peirce's considered view?
b. As a methodological point, are you making metaphysical claims about the real
nature of symbols, indexes and icons? Or, do you think the assertion is
supported by the semiotic theory taken in independence from the theory of
metaphysics?
--Jeff
Jeffrey Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354 <tel:928%20523-8354>
________________________________________
From: Jon Awbrey <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 1:04 PM
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth
John, Jon, Gary, all ...
I realize that iconolatry -- just one of many forms of dyadic reductionism --
runs too deep at present for most folks to appreciate this, but it happens
to be one of the consequences of Triadic Relation Irreducibility (TRI) that
symbols, signs that denote their objects solely by virtue of the fact that
they are interpreted to do so, are the genus of all signs, while icons and
indices are species under that genus. An icon is an icon only because it
is interpreted as an icon, by virtue of some property that is singled out
from all the possible properties that it may share with a denoted object.
Thus symbols are the fons et origo of all other signs --
they do not in the first instance grow from icons so
much as icons crystallize from the primordial matrix
of symbols.
TRI, TRI Again ...
Jon
-----------------------------
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 .
