[Inquiry] Re: Pure Symbols -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

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

PS.  Discussion Note 5

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

JA = Jon Awbrey
JR = Joe Ransdell

Re: PS-DIS 4.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-March/002472.html
In: PS-DIS.    http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-March/thread.html#2466

I see that 23 easter eggs have magically appeared in my in-basket overnight,
but before I even think of hatching them let me first clarify my previous
statement on this topic, as I see a way that it might be misinterpreted.

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?

JA, amending JA one more time:

    It depends on what you mean by "depends".
    If you mean relational 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.

Perhaps you are thinking, "Well, of course, if you know the object and sign,
then you know the possible interpretants that go along with them!"  And you
would be perfectly right, if it were a situation where you already know the
sign relation, say L c O x S x I, in question.  In that situation, you know
all the triples of the form <o, s, i> in L, in other words, to say it up to
information-equivalence, you have information equal to knowing them all, or
you have information that tells you exactly what is or is not a triple in L.

But that is not the situtation that I am talking about here, a situation
where you are not given a whole sign relation at the outset, but have to
try and determine it solely from the data given about objects and signs.

If the data about objects in O and signs in S is enough to determine
a unique sign relation L c O x S x I, then the sign relation L is
clearly degenerate under these conditions, or on these grounds.

Jon Awbrey

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