Jon S., Jeff et al.,
Jon, thanks for jumping in here while I was occupied elsewhere. I’m essentially in agreement with what you say, but i’m responding here before reading subsequent posts in the thread, so for now I’ll just point to some Peirce texts relevant to these issues. The 1904 letter to Welby in CP 8.327ff. and SS 23-36 (but not in EP2) is the most extensive discussion of the NDTR trichotomies that I know of outside the NDTR itself, and situates them firmly in the phenomenological categories. Here’s the context of Jeff’s quote: __________________________________ 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. 336. In respect to its immediate object a sign may either be a sign of a quality, of an existent, or of a law. As for the internal/external distinction, Peirce’s application of it to “worlds” is pervasive, so naturally he also speaks of external or internal signs (e.g. EP2:388). But when it comes to what is internal to the sign, the quotes are a bit harder to find. Here’s one from the 1908 letter to Welby, which says that “It is usual and proper to distinguish two Objects of a Sign, the Mediate without, and the Immediate within the Sign” (EP2:480). See also EP2:485: 354. The inquiry ought, one would expect, to be an easy one, since both trichotomies depend on there being three Modes of Presence to the mind, which we may term The Immediate,—The Direct,—The Familiar Mode of Presence. The difference between the two trichotomies is that the one refers to the Presence to the Mind of the Sign and the other to that of the Immediate Object. The Sign may have any Modality of Being, i.e., may belong to any one of the three Universes; its Immediate Object must be in some sense, in which the Sign need not be, Internal. OK, now I’ll try to catch up with later posts! Gary f. From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: 7-Dec-15 15:29 To: Jeffrey Brian Downard <jeffrey.down...@nau.edu>; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations Jeff, List: To answer your corrected questions ... 1. Yes, icon/index/symbol is always based on the relation between sign and dynamical object. 2. No, icon/index/symbol is not a classification of signs that includes the relation of sign to immediate object. I am not going to be able to provide specific references regarding internal vs. external; to be honest, I am not sure whether that terminological distinction comes directly from Peirce's own writings or from the secondary literature. However, my understanding is that the trichotomy for the immediate object/interpretant itself is interchangeable with the trichotomy for its relation to the sign; it is precisely this lack of a separate relation that makes them immediate, rather than dynamical. In fact, that letter to Lady Welby is exactly what I had in mind when I mentioned the "earlier" classification of the immediate interpretant as feelings/experiences/thoughts (vs. hypothetic/categorical/relative). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt <http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard <jeffrey.down...@nau.edu <mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu> > wrote: Hello Jon, List, Quick responses and a further question. J.S.: No, icon/index/symbol actually corresponds to the relation between sign and dynamical OBJECT. J.D.: Yes, my apologies for the error. I meant to say: is the icon is a class of signs that is always based on the relation between sign and dynamical object? Or, is it also a classification of signs that includes the relation of sign to immediate object as well? J.S.: Peirce did not propose separate trichotomies for the relations between sign and immediate object or between sign and immediate interpretant, presumably because both of those are INTERNAL to the sign. J.D.: Can you point me to some places where Peirce explains what is internal and what is external to a sign? I'd like to take a look. Note: while I agree that Peirce did not offer a set of terms for classifying signs based on the relation of sign to immediate object or the relation of sign to immediate interpretant, he does talk about kinds of signs that are based on those relations. Here is what he says a letter to Lady Welby. In respect to its immediate object a sign may be 1. a sign of a quality 2. of an existent 3. or of a law. (CP 8.336) Relation of sign to immediate interpretant: 1. those interpretable in qualities of feelings or appearances 2. those interpretable in actual experiences 3. those interpretable in other signs of the same kind in infinite series. (CP 8.339) What aren't these included in the list of the most important kinds of relations that we need to consider when classifying signs. Even if they are not the most important, what light do they shed on Peirce's larger classificatory system for signs and sign relations? --Jeff Jeffrey Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 <tel:928%20523-8354>
----------------------------- 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 .
