Re: Logical Graphs, Iconicity, Interpretation • 2
Re: Laws of Form • John Mingers
- The quote you have given does not match the standard Peircean trichotomy
of icon, index, symbol. See this quote from [CP 4.447 …]
I hesitate to call any sketch Peirce gave of the big three sign types a “standard Peircean trichotomy of icon, index, symbol”. Several considerations give me pause on this point.
- Peirce gave so many instructive and useful characterizations of the main sign types over the years I’d be hard-pressed to declare any one text definitive. It is not that we have a hermeneutic circle where every text is granted equal weight, only that it takes more analysis to define the terms as yet undefined and to sort all terms involved in order of their mutual and sole dependencies.
- A cursory inspection of Peirce’s sign types, from major to minor, shows we rarely if ever have true -tomies, in the sense of mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories. True, we often speak of dichotomies and trichotomies in loose terms, but now and again loose speech has led to sinking ontologies.
Oops … more to say but need to break for midday sustenance …
cc: Cybernetics • Ontolog Forum • Structural Modeling • Systems Science
cc: FB | Logical Graphs • Laws of Form • Peirce List