[Inquiry] Re: Attribute, Impute, Represent -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

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

AIR.  Discussion Note 2

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

BM = Bernard Morand

Re: AIR-DIS 1.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-February/002386.html
In: AIR-DIS.    http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-February/thread.html#2386

Bernard,

A residual point that I did not catch the first time around:

BM: I feel uncomfortable with some of Joe's arguments, as it is the case
    with the icon supposed to be implied into the symbol for example.

Best I can remember, Joe was referring to a context where Peirce was talking
about a "complete sign", by which I gather he means a "proposition", and not
just in the sense of propositional calculus, but a "quantified proposition",
and this is a very special type of complex symbol that involves both iconic
and indexical components.  Of course, this is an assertion that does not
generally hold, except in the equivocal sense that no concrete sign is
actually a pure type.

Jon Awbrey

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