Re: Icon Index Symbol

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Icon Index Symbol • 18
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/01/08/icon-index-symbol-18/

Questions Concerning Certain Faculties Claimed For Signs
========================================================

Re: FB | Semiotics, Books, Links, News
https://www.facebook.com/groups/373930009449106
::: Muntadher Almahdawi
https://www.facebook.com/groups/373930009449106/permalink/1856066764568749

All,

Another one of those recurring questions just came up in a Facebook group
devoted to Semiotics and I thought it would be useful to try my hand at
a fresh attempt to answer it — or at least promote further discussion.

MA: Can index become symbol? Why or why not?

“Icon”, “Index”, “Symbol” and all other classifications are ideal types
abstracted from concrete signs and there are no pure types in actual existence.
However, it is a consequence of triadic relation irreducibility that symbols are
in a genuine sense the generic type while icons and indices are specializations
or so-called “degenerate” cases.

Regards,

Jon

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Icon Index Symbol • 20
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/01/11/icon-index-symbol-20/

Questions Concerning Certain Faculties Claimed For Signs
========================================================

Re: FB | Semiotics, Books, Links, News • Jon Awbrey • Dalibor Lošťák
https://www.facebook.com/groups/373930009449106/permalink/1856066764568749

JA:
Icon, Index, Symbol and all other classifications are

ideal types abstracted from concrete signs and there
are no pure types in actual existence. However, it is
a consequence of triadic relation irreducibility that
symbols are in a genuine sense the generic type while
icons and indices are specializations or so-called
“degenerate” cases.

DL:
I think the first sentence answers the question brilliantly. However,
I disagree with your assertion about the “degenerate cases”. It is my
understanding that iconicity is the aspect of a sign that represents
its Firstness, which is incapable of degeneracy. This also leads me
to the notion that fully degenerate Thirdness, as applied to a Symbol,
is not an Icon. I would be very interested to read your thoughts on this.

Dear Dalibor,

The way I see Categories applying to Peirce's logic and semiotics
may be gleaned from the following Survey page.

• Survey of Precursors Of Category Theory
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/09/20/survey-of-precursors-of-category-theory-2/

The series beginning with the following post might be a good place to start.

• Peirce's Categories • 1
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/10/30/peirces-categories-1/

Regards,

Jon