Reactions to "What is a Sign?" by Charles Peirce

The tone that Charles Peirce uses really dates the article. It definitely seems like the analysis of a far simple culture, and body of information than today's world. He breaks all of "human interest" into three levels: primary [interest in the a thing in and of itself], secondary [interest in a thing in relation to other things], and mediatory [interest in a thing as a representation]. First of all I do not think this a very linear progression. Second I don't think it encompasses all of the many cognitive relationships we have with our environment. Peirce continues to separate signs into a somewhat corresponding three groups: likenesses [or icons], indications, and symbols. The catagory that is the least consistent and logical, to me, is the indices. What does that mean? His example was a guide post, which is a physical thing and not well related to the world of images. He then continues to say that "pictures alone--pure likenesses--can never convey the slightest information." Ok, lets look at his zebra example. He states that equating a zebra to a donkey as a symbol of stubbornness is an application of likeness. Tell me how that is "no information" whatsoever. I would say, using his own incomplete formula, that the analysis would go like this. As you perceive a zebra, you already have the perception of a donkey in your mind [a likeness]. The shape of the animal indicates [indice, obviously] that the zebra relates to the donkey. You associate the image of a donkey with the animal's stubborn nature, and that correlation is a third-level symbolic/representative level of cognition. But instead he delivers a shit-awful jumble of random information. Personally, I think his theory leaves out many important factors in how we think about images. I guess personal taste and customs can be learned, but I don't think they would fit in the same pattern of logic. What about all the things we learn by way of community. For example, when we are little, and our brains are most active, we will put anything into our mouths, regardless of association to things we have eaten before. We learn on a case-by-case basis. Then our parents instruct us on what is good and bad for our bodies. That lingual learning formula is far more complicated than perception, indication, rule. Anyway, it was an interesting article.