Jerry C., List: JLRC: Why do you associate this excerpt with Icons, Indices and Symbols?
Because we know from the preceding paragraph that "each kind of sign" refers specifically to Icon/Index/Symbol. CSP: All thinking is dialogic in form. Your self of one instant appeals to your deeper self for his assent. Consequently, all thinking is conducted in signs that are mainly of the same general structure as words; those which are not so, being of the nature of those signs of which we have need now and then in our converse with one another to eke out the defects of words, or *symbols*. These non-symbolic thought-signs are of two classes: first, pictures or diagrams or other images (I call them *Icons*) such as have to be used to explain the significations of words; and secondly, signs more or less analogous to symptoms (I call them *Indices*) of which the collateral observations, by which we know what a man is talking about, are examples. The Icons chiefly illustrate the significations of predicate-thoughts, the Indices the denotations of subject-thoughts. The substance of thoughts consists of these three species of ingredients. The next step consists in considering why it is that thoughts should take those three different forms. You will observe that each kind of sign ... (CP 6.338-339; 1908) Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 3:30 PM, Jerry LR Chandler < [email protected]> wrote: > List, Jon, Francesco: > > On Sep 11, 2018, at 8:14 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > He also wrote later that the three different forms of > thought--corresponding to Icons, Indices, and Symbols--are best explained > by positing three different "modes of metaphysical being." > > CSP: You will observe that each kind of sign serves to bring before the > mind objects of a different kind from those revealed by the other species > of signs. The key to the solution of this question is that what we think of > cannot possibly be of a different nature from thought itself. For the > thought thinking and the immediate thought-object are the very same thing > regarded from different points of view ... We must conclude, then, that the > reason why different things have to be differently thought of is that their > modes of metaphysical being are different. (CP 6.339; 1908) > > I believe that this quote, coming late in his lifetime, reveals a critical > aspect of the connections between natural sorts and kinds and logic. In > simpler language, it recalls Gregory Bateson, “the difference that makes a > different.” In this context, the reasoning about the experience of signs > is not merely to form propositions. It is necessary to reason such that > the differences between signs distinguish the metaphysical differences > between the Immediate objects. Another way of stating this conclusion is > that of identity of objects. The signs emanating from an object are > causally connected to the mode of meta-physical being of the whole. > > The logics of the natural sciences necessarily derive themselves from this > notion of comparison. The term “species” may refer to any natural species > of any scope or scale. In the natural sciences, the scope and scale of > objects are arrived at by compositions of parts of wholes (mereology) using > the logic of comparisons of qualisigns. > > What is the difference between this view of the meta-physical origins of > logic and First Order Logic? > Or, Propositions of Predicate Logic? > In other words, what is the role of identity in first order logic? Or, > predicate logic? > > In short, the mathematical notion of an identity is a construct of logical > operations within the mathematical symbol system, NOT OF SIGNS emanating > from the particular mode of metaphysical being of a particular natural > object. > > Jon: Why do you associate this excerpt with Icons, Indices and Symbols? > The actuality of the logic of sets does not uses three different terms, > such as Icons, Indices and Symbols in constructing arguments about > mathematical species. Indeed, only one term, “set” is used and does not > have a “mode of meta-physical being”. > > Cheers > > Jerry >
----------------------------- 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 .
