[Inquiry] Re: Pure Symbols -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

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

PS.  Discussion Note 2

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

JA = Jon Awbrey
GR = Gary Richmond

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?

GR, quoting CSP:

CSP: | Every word is a symbol.  Every sentence is a symbol.
     | Every book is a symbol.  Every representamen depending
     | upon conventions is a symbol.  Just as a photograph is an
     | index having an icon incorporated into it, that is, excited
     | in the mind by its force, so a symbol may have an icon or an
     | index incorporated into it, that is, the active law that it is
     | may require its interpretation to involve the calling up of
     | an image, or a composite photograph of many images of past
     | experiences, as ordinary common nouns and verbs do;  or
     | it may require its interpretation to refer to the actual
     | surrounding circumstances of the occasion of its embodiment,
     | like such words as 'that', 'this', 'I', 'you', 'which', 'here',
     | 'now', 'yonder', etc.  Or it may be pure symbol, neither 'iconic'
     | nor 'indicative', like the words 'and', 'or', 'of', etc.
     |
     | C.S. Peirce, CP 4.447
     |
     |"Logical Tracts, No. 2" (c. 1903), in 'Collected Papers', CP 4.418-509.
     | http://www.existentialgraphs.com/peirceoneg/existentialgraphs4.418-529.htm

Gary,

Thanks for a quotation very much to the point.
This is one of the most crucial questions for
distinguising Peirce's theory of signs from
many other approaches.  I have long thought
that the answer was a resounding "yes", and
I have long believed that Peirce thought so,
too, at least from the time of encountering
the definition of a sign relation in NEM 4,
since it seems so carefully shorn of anything
that might imply iconic or indicial characters
in the nature of signs in general.  More later.

Jon Awbrey

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