[Inquiry] Re: Questions Involving Pure Symbols -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

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

QUIPS.  Discussion Note 28

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

AB = Auke van Breemen

AB: What bothers me in this discussion on purity of symbols from the start
    is the focus on 'symbol' instead of 'sign and object being symbolically
    related'.  That opens up the possibility of forgetting that symbol is a
    shorthand for a complex of relations.  And in my opinion there is a big
    difference between the questions:

AB: 1. are there pure symbols

AB: 2. are there instances of relations between
       sign and object that are purely symbolical.

AB: With regard to the first question I would simply say:
    no, because that pure symbol would have to be at the
    same time a legisign (with a replica) and at the very
    least a rheme.  So, actually the question comes down to:
    is it possible to have a symbolical relation between sign
    and object without the admixture of iconical and indexical
    elements.  And by now we are not discussing signs but only
    one sign-relational aspect.  Which is, in my present opinion,
    a more proper domain for something like formal existence.

Auke,

I peirce-istently emphasize the fact that signhood
is a relational role and not an essential category,
and thus signs and their species are what they are
solely within the context of a given sign relation,
which is given in extension as a set of elementary
sign relations of the form <o, s, i>, and given in
intension as a property that all such triples have.
The sign relation that installs its objects, signs,
and interpretant signs in their roles is permitted
to be explicit or implicit as the occasion demands,
but without it there is no signhood to speak about.

Jon Awbrey

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