[Inquiry] Re: Pure Symbols -- Discussion -- Correction

[Jon Awbrey]

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

PS.  Discussion Note 4

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

JR = Joe Ransdell

Re: PS-DIS 3.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-March/002469.html
In: PS-DIS.    http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-March/thread.html#2466

JR: But Jim's point is not that thirdness has to be derived
    from secondness and firstness but that it depends upon
    them.  How could the symbol be pure in the sense of not
    depending upon secondness and firstness, the indexical
    and the iconic?  Have I got that right, Jim, or are you
    saying something that implies a reduction of some sort?

It depends on what you mean by "depends".
If you mean functional dependence, then
I would interpret the problem of whether
thirdness is dependent on secondness and
firstness as asking this question:  Can
you tell what the interpretants must be
from looking at properties of the object,
the sign, or the ordered pair of the two?
If so, then the sign relation reduces in
effect to a monadic or a dyadic relation.

Jon Awbrey

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