[Inquiry] Re: Pure Symbols

[Jon Awbrey]

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

PS.  Note 2

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

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

Copied here:

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.

Let me just give my own answer, before continuing with the discussion.
There are pure symbols, that is to say, purely symbolic sign relations,
in particular, those that do not involve, qua sign relations, any ideas
of iconic or indexical sign relations.

What leads me to think this, and leads me to think that Peirce intended this,
is that his best definition of a sign relation does not imply any necessity
of elementary sign relations having their membership in a sign relation be
determined by reference to a 2-adic relation between signs and objects.

This is one of the most critical features of Peirce's theory of signs.
Without the provision of pure symbols, a theory of signs, and with it
the corresponding theory of inquiry, will quickly fall prey to all of
the mistakes that 2-adic correspondence theories of truth are heir to.

Jon Awbrey

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