John, I see that you still put semiotics beneath phenomenology. My question: if speculative grammar, with alternative name semiotics is not the first of the normative logic branch anymore, what occupies this spot instead?
You seem to argue that because semiotic is not normative it cannot be part of normative logic. If this impression is correct I wonder why you argue thus. I see no problem in a sub-branch of a normative science that itself cannot properly be called normative. Normative logic: 1. concerned with study of most general characteristics of signs 2. concerned with relation of signs and objects 3. concerned with effectiveness of signs Note the close connection with the sign definition. Auke -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: John F Sowa <[email protected]> Verzonden: vrijdag 14 september 2018 22:32 Aan: [email protected] Onderwerp: Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories and Modes of Being (was How should semeiotic be classified? Edwina, Jerry R, Jon AS, and Jerry LRC, Peirce answered your questions. I like his 1903 *outline* because it's a clean and simple summary of everything he wrote about the sciences and their interrelationships. But as an outline, it omits nearly all the details. ET > I wonder if this list will ever move beyond debates [and again, I > consider them debates and not discussions] about classification and > terminology I definitely do not want to debate. I consider this thread as a *collaborative inquiry* in trying to understand what Peirce said and fill in the gaps. My only goal is to get a clear understanding of that outline and its relationship to all of Peirce's writings. That classification has some very important implications for biology, but I'll have to address that separately because it requires more space. JR > From what I’ve read, biosemiotic suffers from not being a formal > theory at all. Rather, it is a science (?) that is still seeking to > understand itself. I agree. But I'll repeat the diagram in CSPsemiotic.jpg. Note that mathematics includes all possible theories about anything. Every theory, formal or informal, in every branch of philosophy and empirical science is an application of some theory of mathematics. JR > my question was about biosemiotic, which has a perspective that is > different from semiotic because of its special focus on living systems > (biology, hence biosemiotic). Semiotic also has a focus on living systems: human beings. Peirce himself talked about extensions to parrots, dogs, bees, and crystals. JR > I don’t treat bacteria as a quasi-mind. The biologist Lynn Margulis, who spent her career studying bacteria, considered bacteria on a continuum with all higher life forms: > The growth, reproduction, and communication of these moving, alliance- > forming bacteria become isomorphic with our thought, with our > happiness, our sensitivities and stimulations. Given what Peirce wrote, I believe that he would agree. My only correction would replace the word 'isomorphic' (equal form) with 'homomorphic' (similar form). This quotation comes from https://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/n-Ch.7.html At the end of that article are various comments by prominent researchers in biology and related fields. They're helpful for understanding Lynn M's contributions. JAS > The other two--quality and brute reaction--are not Signs themselves, > and cannot be reduced to Signs I agree. I thanked Gary F. for finding a quotation by Peirce that clarified that issue. JAS > Peirce repeatedly made it very clear that he considered Logic as > Semeiotic to be a Normative Science, not a branch of phenomenology. No. He explicitly said that logic is a branch of mathematics. As mathematics, it is applicable to every science without exception. But most sciences, including phenomenology, do not make value judgments. Under normative science, he explictly said that it is a "partial and narrow" point of view. See CP 1.573. Fundamental principle, which Peirce said many times in many ways: Mathematics and logic are the foundation every science without exception. In *every* science, logic is used in the broad sense. But normative science is an exception: it's used in a narrow sense. JLRC > Semantics alone is merely philosophy abused. > Mathematics alone is not even logic. I don't know how you define those terms. What I've been trying to do is to summarize Peirce's classification of the sciences as accurately as possible. If you can find any quotations by Peirce that support those two points, please let us know. JLRC > CSP focused on language as a path of syntaxies to arguments that > illuminated the natural groundings of human communication in an > extraordinary wide sense. I agree. He said that linguistics was the best developed of all the psychic sciences. That would probably imply that all the other psychic sciences depend on linguistics. But that does not negate his point that all sciences, including linguistics, depend on math and logic. 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 .
