> On Aug 7, 2017, at 10:21 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > Clark, > > Kirsti has presented zero evidence that the sign classifications Peirce > detailed in the 1908 Welby letters are summaries of earlier work rather than > current work on his part. In fact, if you actually read the material in > EP2:477-91 you’ll see why the editors described it as “among the richest > records of the evolution of his semiotic thought” — an evolution that was > very much in progress as he was writing, as is obvious from his own comments > on the process. And on p. 482, Peirce makes it very clear that “the accurate > definition, or logical analysis, of the concepts” of semeiotic was central to > his inquiry (not to Welby’s; in fact she apparently didn’t know what to make > of his analysis of signs).
Again just to be clear I’m not taking a position on the “when.” It’s just not something I’ve studied. I’d taken that header to the Lady Welby excerpts to imply he was working on it while writing to her. However the excerpts, according to the header, come from a space of time from spring 1906 to Christmas 1908. So that’s a broad period which is all I was saying. i.e. he may have used the letter writing to clarify his thoughts, but he appears to have been thinking on the issues for some time. To your final point, I’m not quite sure what you’re arguing. Certainly to the degree one is studying semiotics one must have accurate definitions and logical analysis. The question is whether that is a means to an end or the end itself. I’d note that the prior paragraph to the one you quote from on p. 482 goes through the divisions he takes from the medievals: grammar, logic & rhetoric. I have a post to Gary Richmond where I am dealing with his points and questions from last week that goes through that in more depth. It’s about half written but I want to be careful I get things right on it. I’d just say that the prior paragraph suggests meaning is quite significant. (Forgive the wordplay) It’s interesting that he quotes in that paragraph from his paper in 1867 as it relates to the relation of symbols to their objects. My sense, perhaps mistaken, is that the debate is over which is more important, the grounds for meaing which Peirce puts first or the formal conditions of truth. That is, what does “first” mean both in how he views it in 1908 and how he viewed it in 1867. Without speaking for anyone else, I’m certainly not devaluing the second science he discusses. Further I think even relative to meaning it is key. Yet I think the most important and foundational analysis consists of meaningfulness itself or the formal conditions of symbols having meaning. It is to conduct both those analysis though that one must first analyze the concepts. So I agree that is central, but only as a means to an end.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
