Gary F wrote: "Peirce does say that an icon denotes an object, . . " (100714-1)
An icon as a qualisign is in the mode of Firstness and hence cannot "denote" others. This problem would disappear if an icon can denote itself or "self-denoting". Would such a possibility (!) consistent with Peirce's writings or with NP ? With all the best. Sung ___________________________________________________ Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net > Ben, thatâs true, you didn't say that the discussion is not directly > relevant to Natural Propositions, but Iâm saying now, based on my > intensive reading of the book which you donât have, that its relevance > is very indirect indeed. > > > > In your quotes, Peirce does say that an icon denotes an object, so > youâre definitely right about that; but this terminological point does > not clarify Peirceâs 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 'â<' 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 .
