Ben, List, I think it was Herbert Simon who I first recall lumping engineering under the heading of the “design sciences” but I don't know if that usage was original with him.
Coincidentally, again, if you believe in such things, I've been reviewing a number of old discussions on the Peirce List in preparation for getting back to my study of Peirce's 1870 Logic of Relatives and there are a few places where the exchanges with Bernard Morand branched off onto the classification of signs. Here is the initial exchange: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Talk:Peirce%27s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives#Discussion_Note_10 Bernard gives his Table of the “Ten Divisions of Signs” here: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Talk:Peirce%27s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives#Discussion_Note_13 Most of you know this is not really my thing — I prefer to think of these taxonomies or typologies as detailing the “Aspects or Modes of Sign Functionality” as opposed to mutually exclusive and exhaustive ontologies of signs. So I just submit them FWIWTWIMC ... Regards, Jon On 3/2/2017 3:15 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote:
Jon S., list, I just remembered that Bernard Morand, now retired, of Institut Universitaire de Technologie (France), Département Informatique, who used to be quite active on peirce-l, wrote a book published in 2004 _Logique de la Conception: Figures de sémiotique générale d'après Charles S. Peirce _ [Logic of Design: Illustrations of General Semiotic After Charles S. Peirce] http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/pastbooks.htm#morand <http://www.iupui.edu/%7Earisbe/pastbooks.htm#morand> . In 2004 I had no idea that it was about design, I didn't know that the French word _/conception/_ can simply mean "design." A few years ago I got him to agree to translate into English its foreword which was available gratis online. The English translation of the foreword is at http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/morand/conception-fwd.htm <http://www.iupui.edu/%7Earisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/morand/conception-fwd.htm> . He once provided us with this image of Peirce's diagram of the three sign trichotomies: http://lyris.ttu.edu/read/attachment/220287/2-2/moz-screenshot-1.jpg which now adorns the top of the Peirce Blog http://csp3.blogspot.com/ In his 2004 book, he makes an argument for the ordering of the ten sign-trichotomies as: 3-2-1-4-10-9-8-7-6-5 He discussed it at peirce-l in "Re: Symbol vs. iconized index" 2008-10-27 16:23:57 http://lyris.ttu.edu/read/messages?id=2105468#2105468 Here's a diagram that I made showing his view: http://lyris.ttu.edu/read/attachment/2111107/2/10ad3.GIF Best, Ben
-- inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
