Ben, that’s true, you didn't say that the discussion is not directly relevant to Natural Propositions, but I’m saying now, based on my intensive reading of the book which you don’t have, that its relevance is very indirect indeed.
In your quotes, Peirce does say that an icon denotes an object, so you’re definitely right about that; but this terminological point does not clarify Peirce’s focus on the Dicisign in the Syllabus, because as Peirce also says in your quotes, an icon or qualisign can only be interpreted as a rheme. gary f. From: Benjamin Udell [mailto:bud...@nyc.rr.com] Sent: 7-Oct-14 10:21 AM To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; 'Peirce List' Subject: [biosemiotics:7134] icons denote, WAS Re: Natural Propositions, Chapter Gary F., lists, I didn't say that the discussion is not directly relevant to _Natural Propositions_, I just don't know whether it is. Regarding EP, I usually get by by Googling up EP pages, but last night I was just too tired. >From "Nomenclature..." in CP 2 and EP 2. Occasional font enlargement & >reddening is mine: CP 2.247. EP 2:291 [....] An _Icon_ is a sign which refers to the Object that it denotes merely by virtue of characters of its own, and which it possesses, just the same, whether any such Object actually exists or not. It is true that unless there really is such an Object, the Icon does not act as a sign; but this has nothing to do with its character as a sign. Anything whatever, be it quality, existent individual, or law, is an Icon of anything, in so far as it is like that thing and used as a sign of it. CP 2.248. EP 2.291. An _Index_ is a sign which refers to the Object that it denotes by virtue of being really affected by that Object. [....] CP 2.249. EP 2.292. A _Symbol_ is a sign which refers to the Object that it denotes by virtue of a law, usually an association of general ideas, which operates to cause the Symbol to be interpreted as referring to that Object. [....] CP 2.254. EP 2.294. [....] First: A Qualisign [e.g., a feeling of "red"] is any quality in so far as it is a sign. Since a quality is whatever it is positively in itself, a quality can only denote an object by virtue of some common ingredient or similarity; so that a Qualisign is necessarily an Icon. Further, since a quality is a mere logical possibility, it can only be interpreted as a sign of essence, that is, as a Rheme. [....] [End quotes] A symbol denotes only a general, but a symbol's individual instance (individual replica) is an indexical sinsign serving as an index to one's experience of an instance of the denoted general. (Toward the idea that denotation times comprehension equals information, I think there needs to be at least an idea of whether the general has actual instances or not.) While an icon denotes, it doesn't indicate to you or lead you to what it denotes, it doesn't tell you whether any of its denotation is an actual existent, while an index indicates that which it denotes. Hence, as Peirce said elsewhere: CP 6.338 from "Some Amazing Mazes, Fourth Curiosity", circa 1909 [....] The Icons chiefly illustrate the significations of predicate-thoughts, the Indices the denotations of subject-thoughts. [....] [End quote] Among icons, only a qualisign in some sense "leads" you to that which it denotes, insofar as it presents the quality that it denotes; but then something (e.g., a copula) serving as an index may be needed to point out where the qualisign is in the complex sign. Gary R., regarding the '—<' as copula, it was another passage that I was thinking of. In it, Peirce mentions how various languages handle the copula. Best, Ben
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
