Hi, Wilfred,
I just said in another post to peirce-l:
"Note: it's an index or subindex in singling me out, or singling some other Ben
out. It's not a legisign in virtue of such ambiguity." For many purposes, it's
more convenient to treat "Ben" in its ambiguity as just that -- an
inconveniently ambiguous sign. In the discussions by Peirce which I've read, it
seems usually understood that the topic of interest is the unique reference.
There's a legisign "Ben" which is really the acceptation of any sign which
singles me out uniquely. There's a qualisign "Ben" which is the recurrent sign
that looks or sounds like "Ben."
But you have a point. For some purposes, such
as when we are speaking of proper names as actually used in human language,
maybe then we WOULD wish sometimes to treat it as a legisign capable of
referring to different Bens. It's a legisign that doesn't have a whole log of
general meaning, yet, nevertheless.... And of course, many proper names DO
have traditional meanings. "Ben" is short for "Benjamin" which means "favorite
son."
It should be noted that many parents name
their children after relatives in the family, and sometimes after
friends.
In the U.S.A., at least when I was growing up,
"Ben" also was an associator to Benjamin Franklin. "Hey, Benjamin Franklin!" --
I heard that often enough when I was a kid. In later years, the associations
were not so good -- especially when a movie (which I've never watched)
about a rat named "Ben" became a big hit along with a hit song from it by
Michael Jackson. To this day this or that woman will start to sing "Ben, the two
of us need look no more..." These are passing & transitory meanings, fads,
though I've heard them hundreds of time in my life.
Many years ago, a woman friend took me on
a visit to the whole-floor apartment of an affluent metal sculptor escaped
from Hungary. He had three quasi-wives and some very nervous assistant males. I
was introduced as "Ben" to him.
"Ben -- isn't that the name of a
_rat_?"
"Well -- yes, it was the name of a
_famous_ rat. Since that time it has been the name of a kindly bear
"Gentle Ben" and of a man who worked with bears. There's an increasing number of
nice secondary characters and we Bens have good hopes of eventually there being
a leading man named 'Ben'."
The sculptor liked that and proceeded to give
me a tour and also showed me the wounds which he said he got from bullets while
swimming across a river in escape from Hungary.
Anyway, the care which parents sometimes take
in naming their children testifies to the character of a proper name as singling
more than one person out in ways that are not irrelevant or mere
inconveniences.
Best, Ben
----- Original Message -----
From: "Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" <peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu>
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 1:03
PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: naming definite
individuals
But to me, as examples:
Sinsign- index- particular case - THE name Wilfred connected to me. In this particular case the proper name Wilfred is a sinsign
Legisign- subindex- not a particular case - THE name Wilfred in general without connection to a person. Maybe if it is printed on a coffee mug it is a sinsign for that particular mug (relation to the mug) but a legisign in relation to all persons with the name.
Whatever I think it is most important that Peirce essentially wants to show and being able to express the differences in the "real" world through these expressions.
I would be interested a lot in replies on me stating here that THE "proper name" would be a sinsign on a cup of coffee but a legisign in relation to persons. I am not sure about this also because like I said I did not hear or read about these differentiations in signs before.
Kind regards,
Wilfred ---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
