> On Mar 29, 2017, at 1:58 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > J.A.S., your post quoting “New Elements” makes much more sense that the other > Jon’s claim that “icons and indices are species under the genus” of symbol, > which I’m pretty sure Peirce would never say. The point that Peirce makes in > his “Nomenclature and Divisions of Triadic Relations” and elsewhere is that > symbols can involve indices, and indices can involve icons — indeed symbols > must involve both icons and indices in order to convey any information — but > icons do not involve indices nor do indices involve symbols, and this is what > makes them “degenerate” relative to the symbol. They are certainly not > species of the genus symbol. TRI again, Jon A. > > As for which type of sign is logically “primordial,” I think the key to the > Peircean answer to that question is in his assertion that “a symbol alone is > indeterminate.” Now, any symbol which has a real object has been determined > by that object, to some extent, so clearly the “primordial” symbol is not one > of those. So the time before time is also prior to any information or > transformation. But that’s as far as I’m prepared to go into cosmology or the > universe of pre-reality. >
I wish I’d had the ability to put it that clearly Gary. Thanks for that. I’m marking this so I can quote you in future. As you say, the primordial issue or cosmological issue is really the issue of moving for indeterminacy to determinacy. For practical symbols in semiotics you need indices and icons.
----------------------------- 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 .
