[Inquiry] Re: Sign Relations -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

SR.  Discussion Note 23

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

AB = Auke van Breemen
JA = Jon Awbrey

Re: SR-COM 28.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-December/003325.html
In: SR-COM.     http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-December/thread.html#3325

JA: With all that in mind, let us return to the quest for something
    nigh unto the "smallest possible iconic sign relation" (SPICON).
    I think that many of the difficulties that we find in reasoning
    about the relations of signs in general to the assorted species
    of signs, like icons and indices, would be greatly eased by the
    examination of such concretely detailed examples, if we can but
    find a few.

AB: As I understand Peirce a pure icon only offers the possibility
    to partake in a sign relation.  The sign relation is established
    through the contribution of a symbolic element.  In which case the
    relation you have to look for may be of a symbolic, iconic nature,
    but not purely iconic. 

AB: Next a question.  What do you mean by smallest possible?
    Is it according to the quantum of information it conveys or
    to the amount of possible different kinds of interpretants
    involved as for instance when only an idea is raised but
    no response asked for?  Or still something else?

Auke, Peirce List,

I am planning to follow the model that is usual in
constructing concrete examples of abstract concepts
in mathematics and in the allied disciplines of the
formal sciences.  The way that this usually goes is
a bit as follows.

For definiteness, one picks a definition of the concept in question.
As far as the bare definition of a sign relation goes I like the one
in L75, so I will make that my base camp.  Folks who prefer different
definitions are encouraged to set out from those, and at some point the
re-assembled parties can compare their gleanings.  Whatever the outcomes,
much can be learned thereby.  A suitable definition of an icon is a little
more chancey.  I will most likely go with the moral equivalents of the idea
that an icon is a sign whose sharing of a property with its object determines
a sign, not of necessity distinct, that is usually dubbed its interpretant sign.

I haven't said anything about pure icons, and don't really plan to,
so I won't stop to inquire into the divirginces of its definitions.

As far as "smallest possible" goes, I said "nigh unto".
The usual stratagem here is the construct the smallest
one that you can cook up, and to await another thinker
to underwhelm you.  When there's a chance of finding a
finite sign relation that satisfies the specifications,
then the cardinality of the set of triples will do for
the measure of size.  By "smallest" we mean "minimal",
not "minimum", as there may be multiple minimal ones.

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o