Jon, if all of Logic and all of Semeiotic are normative, then the term Normative is simply redundant in the phrase “Normative Logic as Semeiotic.”
By the way, I was not trying to convince you that the “two sets of three Universes are necessarily different.” (That would be engaging in a terminological dispute.) I was simply observing some differences between “The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism” and “A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God”. Gary f. From: Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> Sent: 7-Mar-19 12:44 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism Gary F., List: Let me say at the outset that this post is not intended to engage in a terminological dispute, but rather simply to explain my own current usage. GF: To me, Peirce’s term “Logic as Semiotic” refers mainly to speculative grammar (and rhetoric) and not to normative Logic--although I’m not prepared to draw a hard line between the two. I understand Speculative Grammar, Logical Critic, and Speculative Rhetoric (or Methodeutic) to be the three branches of Normative Logic as Semeiotic. In other words, all three are normative, not just Logical Critic; and all three deal with all kinds of Signs, not just Speculative Grammar. One reason why I have been adding "Normative" to "Logic as Semeiotic" lately is because a few months ago, John Sowa proposed treating "Semiotic" as a branch of Phenomenology, rather than Normative Science as a generalization of Logic. As we discussed at the time, that is clearly inconsistent with Peirce's classification of the sciences. GF: I consider Peirce’s study of reasoning to be semiotic but not primarily normative. Peirce defined a science as normative if it "treats of the laws of the relation of phenomena to ends" (CP 5.123, EP 2:197; 1903), and considered the subject matter of logic to be "those things whose end is to represent something" (CP 5.129, EP 2:200; 1903)--namely, Signs; hence the generalization to Semeiotic. Speculative Grammar is normative because it studies "what must be the characters of all signs used by a 'scientific' intelligence, that is to say, by an intelligence capable of learning by experience" (CP 2.227; c. 1897). The study of reasoning is likewise normative, "For the sole purpose of reasoning is ... to ascertain the Truth, in the sense of that which is SO, no matter what be thought about it" (CP 2.153; 1902). GF: Regarding the three Universes of Experience in “A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God”, I notice one big difference between them and the three Universes of Capacities, Actualities, and Tendencies in R 300: the latter constitute one level of a holarchy: they are subuniverses of a single Universe (of Discourse), and they in turn subdivide into subuniverses ... In the “Neglected Argument,” on the other hand, there are three and only three Universes; Peirce does not mention any subuniverses (nor does he say that the three “shade into one another”). In R 300, Peirce indeed twice characterized the Universes of Tendencies, Actualities, and Tendencies as "subuniverses"; but he did not say that "they in turn subdivide into subuniverses," only that they can be further separated into "provinces." In "A Neglected Argument," he wrote that there are "connections ... between objects in different Universes," and that Musement includes "considering ... some connection between two of the three, with speculation concerning its cause." It culminates in "the consideration of homogeneities and connections between two different Universes, or all three," where ultimately "we find that the three Universes conspire." He also referred once to "the Universe" (singular). Hence I remain unconvinced (so far) that these two sets of three Universes are necessarily different. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
----------------------------- 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 .
