Peirce, CP 8.335: In respect to their relations to their dynamic objects, I divide signs into Icons, Indices, and Symbols (a division I gave in 1867). I define an Icon as a sign which is determined by its dynamic object by virtue of its own internal nature. Such is any qualisign, like a vision, - or the sentiment excited by a piece of music considered as representing what the composer intended. Such may be a sinsign, like an individual diagram; say a curve of the distribution of errors. I define an Index as a sign determined by its dynamic object by virtue of being in a real relation to it. Such is a Proper Name (a legisign); such is the occurrence of a symptom of a disease. (The symptom itself is a legisign, a general type of a definite character. The occurrence in a particular case is a sinsign.) I define a Symbol as a sign which is determined by its dynamic object only in the sense that it will be so interpreted. It thus depends either upon a convention, a habit, or a natural disposition of its interpretant or of the field of its interpretant (that of which the interpretant is a determination). Every symbol is necessarily a legisign; for it is inaccurate to call a replica of a legisign a symbol.
From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] Sent: 16-Dec-14 4:55 PM Gary F, you wrote: The reason that "people keep saying you support dyads" is that your three "relations" have only two "members" each, to use Peirce's term. A triadic relation has three members, not two; and a complexus of three dyadic (two-member) relations is not, according to Peirce, "a triadic relation." That's a completely different analytic frame from Peirce's The triadic relation is genuine, that is its three members are bound together by it in a way that does not consist in any complexus of dyadic relations." Peirce is referring, in his use of the term 'member' to the Relations (see his outline in 8.335) and was declaring that the Sign, as a triad, has three bound parts, the Relations. YOU weren't; you were talking about what YOU see, incorrectly, in my definition of each single Relation as an interaction between, eg, the Representamen and the Object; those two perimeters are what you define as two members. That's not how Peirce used the term - and so, I ask you again, where do you get the sense that the perimeters are 'members'? My response was to point out that the perimeters of the Relation between the, eg, Representamen and the Object are NOT 'members'. So, when I refer to three Relations; that between the Representamen-Object; the Representamen in itself; the Representamen-Object....YOU define these as DYADS, with each perimeter node a 'member'. That, as I have constantly pointed out, is absolutelyincorrect. I could say the same about you - 'if you think your version of semiotics...and..even..if you think you are correct in your interpretation of Peirce'...for I don't agree that your interpretation is correct. And that's as far as it should go. You reject debate and discussion and accept only consensus. Otherwise, you get 'testy'. Again, kindly speak only for yourself; there is no need to 'appeal to others' to stand up and cheer for you. Your arguments should stand or fall, totally on their own merit. I admit, I can never understand why some people feel the need for a crowd around them tocheer on their arguments. You don't agree with me. That's fine - you haven't convinced me that my analytic frame is incorrect, and name-calling or putting me down is not a successful method. You don't agree with me -; I haven't convinced you of the validity of my analysis. and that's as far as it should go. There is no need for insults. Edwina
----------------------------- 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 .
