[Inquiry] Re: Pure Symbols -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

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

PS.  Discussion Note 8

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

JR = Joe Ransdell

JR: And doesn't the Existential Graph system contain icons
    of very abstract logical symbols, such as containment,
    exclusion, inclusion, etc.?  That is, doesn't Peirce
    himself regard the graphical figures as iconic of
    those relations, that being why he prefers it
    to other notations that are not so iconic?

Joe,

The question under consideration is whether there are such things as pure symbols,
involving in their function as symbols, per se, no iconic or indicial properties.

The questions of whether there may be, in addition,
icons of these symbols, and whether these putative
"icons of symbols" may have virtues that one might
prefer for this or that conceivable purpose under
heaven -- these are of course interesting topics,
but not the main question at issue here.

Jon Awbrey

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