Gary R, You can call it “loose talk” if you are so inclined, but it’s not a matter of Peirce using it “at times,” he uses it almost all the time in his writings on semiotic. A quick search through those writings yields the following count of occurrences of the noun and adjective forms:
icon 135, icons 54; iconic 61 index 177, indices 76; indexical 33 symbol 248, symbols 125; symbolic 27 rheme 26, rhemes 3; rhematic 12 dicisign 21, dicisigns 7; dicent 18 argument 299, arguments 113; argumentative 2 As for seme, Peirce never used an adjective form, as far as I can tell. Call it “shorthand” if you like, but if it’s good enough for Peirce, it’s good enough for me. Clearly, for Peirce, an icon is a sign, an index is a sign, and a symbol is a sign. And so on. Gary f. From: Gary Richmond <[email protected]> Sent: 28-Mar-19 18:25 To: Peirce-L <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The danger of destroying Peirce's semeiotic (was Ambiguities... Gary F, Jon, Helmut, Gary F quoted Peirce: CP 2.250. According to the third trichotomy, a Sign may be termed a Rheme, a Dicisign orDicent Sign (that is, a proposition or quasi-proposition), or an Argument. But this is "According to the third trichotomy. . ." The three symbolic signs, the Rheme, the Dicisign, and the Argument are yet all three Legisigns. The "Sign in itself' is still either a Qualisign, a Sinsign, or a Legisign. Jon quoted Peirce: CSP: ... a Qualisign is necessarily an Icon ... it can only be interpreted as a sign of essence, that is, as a Rheme ... But, again, the only Qualisign of the 10 classes, even if necessarily rhematic (in relation to its Interpretant) or Iconic (in relation to its Object) is yet a Qualisign qua sign. ... an Iconic Sinsign ... Being an Icon ... can only be interpreted as a sign of essence, or Rheme ... There are three classes among the 10 of Sinsigns. In relation to their Interpretants they are either Rhematic (Signs 2 and 3) or Indexical (Sign 4). In relation to their Objects they are either Iconic (Sign 2) or Indexical (Signs 3 and 4). But qua Sign in itself, they are all three Sinsigns. ... a Dicent Sinsign is necessarily an Index ... ... an Iconic Legisign ... Being an Icon, it must be a Rheme ... ... a Rhematic Symbol, or Symbolic Rheme ... (CP 2.254-261, EP 2:294-295; 1903) I could continue this analysis as above, but I think it's clear that I see the above examples as instances of Peirce's using a loose shorthand kind of language at times. But unless one is willing to deny that, as he writes: ""Signs are divisible by three trichotomies: first, according as the sign in itself is a mere quality, is an actual existent, or is a general law," then I am not convinced that such loose talk by us is very helpful in a careful consideration of Peirce's analysis of the trichotomic nature of each SIgn: that it has a relation to its Object (which is Iconic, Indexical, or Symbolic), a relation to its Interpretant (which is Rhematic, Dicentic, or Argumentative: and, yes, since there is but one Argumentative sign, there's no need to speak or write the awkward "Argumentative Symbolic Legisign--"Argument will suffice"-- yet it remains in its relation to itself as a Sign, a Legisign; and, mutatis mutandis for shorthand expressions for other signs as well), and is either a Quali-, Sin- or Legisign "according as the sign in itself is a mere quality, is an actual existent, or is a general law." Best, Gary R
----------------------------- 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 .
