[Inquiry] Re: Futures Of Logical Graphs -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

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

FOLG.  Discussion Note 26

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

JA = Jon Awbrey

Re: FOLG 14.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-October/003133.html
In: FOLG.     http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-October/thread.html#3104

The pith of which is copied in here, lest ye forget:

JA: The duality of interpretation for logical graphs tells us
    that the empty medium, the tabula rasa, what Peirce called
    the "sheet of assertion" is a genuine symbol, not a species
    of icon or index, nor, as it has no parts, can it have icons
    or indices among them.  What goes for the medium must go for
    all the signs that it mediates.  Thus we have the case that
    Peirce in one place called "pure symbols", naming a sample
    of fundamental logical operators specifically among them.

CSP: | Every word is a symbol.  Every sentence is a symbol.
     | Every book is a symbol.  Every representamen depending
     | upon conventions is a symbol.  Just as a photograph is an
     | index having an icon incorporated into it, that is, excited
     | in the mind by its force, so a symbol may have an icon or an
     | index incorporated into it, that is, the active law that it is
     | may require its interpretation to involve the calling up of
     | an image, or a composite photograph of many images of past
     | experiences, as ordinary common nouns and verbs do;  or
     | it may require its interpretation to refer to the actual
     | surrounding circumstances of the occasion of its embodiment,
     | like such words as 'that', 'this', 'I', 'you', 'which', 'here',
     | 'now', 'yonder', etc.  Or it may be pure symbol, neither 'iconic'
     | nor 'indicative', like the words 'and', 'or', 'of', etc.
     |
     | C.S. Peirce, 'Collected Papers', CP 4.447
     |
     |"Logical Tracts, No. 2" (c. 1903), in 'Collected Papers', CP 4.418-509.
     | http://www.existentialgraphs.com/peirceoneg/existentialgraphs4.418-529.htm

Peirce List,

In the above citation from Peirce, I count the following contexts in which
occurs a morpheme whose connotations closely overlap with that of "involve":

1.  Every representamen <depending upon> conventions is a symbol ...

2.  Just as a photograph is an index having an icon <incorporated into> it ...

3.  so a symbol may have an icon or an index <incorporated into> it ...

4.  may require its interpretation to <involve> the calling up of an image ...

5.  a <composite> photograph of many images of past experiences ...

6.  may require its interpretation to <refer to> the actual ...

7.  <surrounding circumstances> of the occasion ...

8.  of its <embodiment> ...

9.  Or it may be pure symbol, neither icon<ic> nor indicat<ive> ...

That's ten (10), since the last context contains two (2) examples.
And we should note that the pure symbol is described via negativa,
that is to say, it's characterized as featuring none of the forms
of composition, embodiment, incorporation, involvement, reference,
surround, etc. that are enumerated in items 2 through 10.

So I think there is ample reason to inquire into this ideational complex,
whatever word one happens to use to express it at the moment in question.

Jon Awbrey

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