[Inquiry] Pure Symbols -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

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

PS.  Discussion Note 1

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

JA = Jon Awbrey
JP = Jim Piat

Re: PS 1.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-March/002465.html
In: PS.    http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-March/thread.html#2465

JA: Are there pure symbols?

JA: Do there exist, in the formal sense of existence at least,
    purely symbolic sign relations, in particular, those that
    involve, qua sign relations, no ideas of icons or indices?

JP: OK I'll bite -- LOL

JP: Yes there are pure symbols and yes pure symbols always involve
    the ideas of icons and indices.  And the reason is that the
    relation of "standing for something to something" requires
    and includes both the idea of icons and of indices.  When
    the embodiment of the sign is an icon the sign is called
    an iconic sign (or oftentimes an icon for short).  When
    the embodiment of the sign is an index the sign is often
    called an index and when the embodiment of the sign is
    a mere convention with no necessary non conventional
    relation (either iconic or indexical) to the object
    stood for then the sign is a symbol.

Jim,

Somewhat in the spirit of the "yes, and she can lift it, too" answer
to a famous question of theobarypetrology, you seem to have trampled --
perhaps on purpose? -- the definition of a "pure symbol" that I gave
as one that involves 'no' ideas of icons or indices.  At any rate,
by that definition, a symbol could not remain pure while serving
the other two masters.

The hedges of "formal existence" and "qua sign relations" were meant
to rule out the consideration of concrete signs, physical embodiments,
replicas, sign vehicles, and so on, the question here being the formal
status of an analytic or ideal species.

JP: There is a difference between an icon and an iconic sign.
    There is a difference between an index and an indexical sign.
    All signs are triadic and all signs include the notions of
    icons and indices.

One can make this distinction in a couple of different ways.
One way is just the distinction between a formal species and
its material realizations, and so lies beside the point of my
question.  The other way that I know of is the one that Peirce
makes in some places, between icons and hypoicons, indices and
subindices, but I do not see a parallel distinction for symbols.
This is one of those things I need to think more about, however.

JP: All subject to correction!

JP: And Jon I'm following closely and with pleasure your build up
    to the new list -- so I appreciate your work and your pace.
    I need time to absorb and think about these nuggets you
    are abstracting.

JP: Especially the last couple.  I've read them but haven't really had time
    to think about this whole business of reducing the manifold to unity.
    It's just this sort of context in which all sorts of assumptions are
    hidden that will come back to confuse me if I don't get them fairly
    straight from the get go.

Thanks, Jim, I think there is a bunch to learn from watching
the construction with some of the scaffolding still in place.

Jon Awbrey

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