Frances to John and listers--- Wherever semiotics and logics might be located in a classification of the sciences, it could be that only "formal" semiotics was intended to be the new thrust for logics, but not a new label for logics; nor seemingly was it intended that all of semiotics broadly would be all of logics deeply. While semiotics is clearly claimed to be the theory or science of all signs, logics (or symbology) is likely stated to be only the theory or science of (signed) symbols. In any event, was it implied that semiotics is preparatory and contributory to logics, and that logics was merely ready to fall away from semiotics. To help better appreciate the locus and status of semiotics, until indeed more information might surface, it might be useful to review the impact that other formal theories and sciences could play here, such as metaphysics and ontology and cosmology and especially epistemology as well as psychology and methodology. It is assumed that art and tech and science are perhaps the main acts of humanity, but that semiotics is a field of study falling only under science, and then only under formal science. It is further supposed that the monadic formal science is philosophy and of a realist stripe, which is then followed by the dyadic natural science of say matter and life, and then the triadic social science of say polity and ethnicity and society. This layout of the umbrella sciences (formal and natural and social) tends to make a consistent categorial tern, and perhaps even a richer trichotomic tern. ---Frances
----------------------------- 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 .
