SUO: Re: Semiotics Formalization
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Semiotic SIG,
For future reference, here is a primer for the
classification of signs in Peircean semiotics:
Sign
Index
Icon
Symbol
Term
Proposition
Argument
Deduction
Induction
Abduction
By "primer", of course, you may catch my drift
that the whole scheme of classification is set
to "blow up" from this point on, but this much
will do for start, and for my present purposes.
It needs to be understood that this scheme classifies
the aspects of functioning or the modes of being that
any sign may have to some degree, and that almost any
concrete token of a truly effective sign is likely to
have in a significant measure. So let us not jump to
the facile conclusion that this scheme, or any of the
many schemes that develop, expand, and refine it, are
meant to be taken as mutually exclusive categories of
the signs themselves, even if the whole array of them
aspires, perhaps, to a certain form of exhaustiveness.
My immediate purpose, on the present occasion, is to
begin pinning down the slippery concept of a concept,
in other words, to provide our notions of a notion
with a provisional placement in the semiotic plan.
The way I see it (TWISI), a concept is just a sign
in the mind, in particular, a symbol, which is the
kind of a sign that depends for its interpretation
in an especially integral way on the sign relation
as a whole, which whole sign relation is typically
personified in the hypostasis of an "interpreter".
This means that a concept has a significant portion
of its properties accounted for by its standing as
a symbol, by the mere fact of its membership among
that non-exclusive tribe of signs called "symbols",
which it only partly derives from its mental locus,
and this aside from the manifest aspects of an index
or the manifold attributes of an icon that it has by
dint of being an "affection or impression of the soul".
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤