John S., List: JFS: Semiotic, the general theory of signs, would also be pure mathematics, either formal or informal.
Not according to Peirce; he classified it as a Normative Science. JFS: Semiotic under phenomenology would be an application to perception and recognition of actualities. As Auke noted, phenomenology is the study of *appearances*, not actualities. Actuality is a subset of Reality, and it is *metaphysics *that deals with the Reality of phenomena. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 10:16 PM, John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon AS and Gary R, > > JAS > >> Why expect Peirce to mention logic as semeiotic in connection >> with phenomenology, when he explicitly classified it as a >> Normative Science? >> > > To show the relationships more clearly, I attached another copy > of CSPsemiotic.jpg. Note that Peirce placed formal logic under > mathematics and logic under normative science. That is two mentions. > > He mentions it twice because formal logic has no designated application > under mathematics. Its existential quantifiers range of possibilities. > When it is under normative science it is applied to some subject matter > where its variables refer to actualities. In such an application, it > would serve to evaluate truth or falsity. > > In 1887, Peirce wrote about the design of logic machines. But he did > not mention them in his 1903 classifications. If he had, he would > then place logic for theorem proving under a branch of engineering. > That would make three mentions. In general, there is no limit to > the number of sciences that could use the same theory of mathematics > -- including practical science (engineering). > > JFS > >> I believe that semiotic belongs directly under phenomenology, since >>> every perception involves signs. >>> >> > GR > >> While perhaps "every perception involves signs," as several have noted, >> signs are not studied in phenomenology but in logic as semeiotic. >> > > That's a critical distinction. Semiotic, the general theory of > signs, would also be pure mathematics, either formal or informal. > As mathematics, it would refer to possibilities. > > Semiotic under phenomenology would be an application to perception > and recognition of actualities. But it would make no value judgments. > It would be as nonjudgmental as a pattern recognition program. > > To deem some phenomena worthy of study is to make a normative > value judgment. But a bare, nonjudgmental contemplation is like > Buddhist meditation. That is phenomenology prior to any > intentionality. > > As with logic machines, one could use semiotic in a robot that > does some useful work. That would be an application of semiotic > under some branch of engineering. > > John
----------------------------- 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 .
