Gary, list,
Well, I can't remember any more just what conversation it might have been
that started that notion going in my mind till it turned into something
mythical. Any record is lost on my old ruined hard drive. I simply have to stop
relying on these vague recallings when I post to peirce-l. In the old days, it
didn't seem to matter too much, somebody could always correct me. But now the
peirce-l posts go to mail-archive.com, and there get picked up by the big search
engines, so for the foreseeable future there I am saying "Gary Richmond said x"
etc. When it comes to this sort of thing, from now on I must get it right the
first time. (Speaking of wishing not to rely solely on my memory, also I have to
save things from the Internet oftener. I once found a fascinating discussion of
how it turned out that deductive math theory of information turned out to be
equivalent to areas in abstract algebra. Now it's gone!)
Best, Ben
Gary wrote,
My position has rather been that these are three sets of synonyms (with perhaps some subtle changes of emphasis) with the exception of "token" which is used by Peirce for a brief time as equivalent to "symbol". See, for example in "On the Algebra of Logic": CP 3.360 A sign is in a conjoint relation to the thing denoted and to the mind. If this triple relation is not of a degenerate species, the sign is related to its object only in consequence of a mental association, and depends upon a habit. Such signs are always abstract and general, because habits are general rules to which the organism has become subjected. They are, for the most part, conventional or arbitrary. They include all general words, the main body of speech, and any mode of conveying a judgment. For the sake of brevity I will call them tokens.†3And the editors' footnote: Peirce: CP 3.360 Fn 3 p 210Unfortunately at the moment I won't be able to get further into this matter or some of the other points of Ben's interesting post. Gary --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com |
- [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign Gary Richmond
- [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign Bernard Morand
- [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign Benjamin Udell
- [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign Bernard Morand
- [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualis... Benjamin Udell
- [peirce-l] Diagrammatic and Dialogic Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen
- [peirce-l] Re: Diagrammatic and... Claus Emmeche
- [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualis... Benjamin Udell
- [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign Benjamin Udell
- [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign Gary Richmond
- [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign Benjamin Udell
- [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign Benjamin Udell
- [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign Benjamin Udell
- [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign Bernard Morand
- [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualis... Frances Kelly
- [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qu... Joseph Ransdell
- [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign Joseph Ransdell
- [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualis... Benjamin Udell
- [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualis... Bernard Morand
- [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qu... Joseph Ransdell
- [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisig... Bernard Morand