Gary R and Jon AS,
Two comments on your comments.
GR
I would deeply question your placing semeiotics below phaneroscopy
in such a diagram--applications of normative logic can occur in
any science save mathematics.
That's true. But all the data of *every* science comes from some
observation -- even if it's just an observation of a meter reading.
But I admit that normative logic is necessary for testing all the
hypotheses of both science and everyday life. Therefore, I added
one change to my previous diagram: the word 'formal' to make
Formal semeiotic the result of formal logic applied to the raw
data of phaneroscopy. See the attached cspsci.png.
I also added a dotted line to connect Formal Logic to Normative
Science. That indicates that formal semeiotic is a prerequisite
for normative science. That point is confirmed in the selection
of Peirce's writings that follow CP 1.180 - 1.202.
Semeiotic replaces Logic as the third branch of Normative Science,
rather than being the sole branch of Phenomenology.
No! Formal logic, like all branches of pure mathematics, is pure
possibility. It has no actual content of any kind. Formal semeiotic
is an application of logic to semeiotic. That application establishes
for phenomenological categories of 1ns, 2ns, 3ns and their use in
analyzing any whatever for the purpose of mapping the results to logic.
Peirce did not show formal semeiotic as a branch under phenomenology
because there is nothing else to distinguish it from: Most people
who draw tree diagrams make at least two branches. But I added
that branch in order to emphasize that formal semeiotic, without
the discipline of ethics, is a *prerequisite* for the normative
sciences.
The diagram shows Sowa's classification of the sciences, not Peirce's.
In the latter, Semeiotic replaces Logic.
No. formal logic is never replaced by anything. Please look at
the Commens excerpts for the many occurrences of 'formal Logic'
in Peirce's writings.
What should we call the class of Signs to which such an Index belongs
Good question. There are two sources of evidence:
1. In the triad of Icon, Index, and Symbol, it's a second. That
implies it should be grouped with the second item Pheme, not
the first item Seme.
2. Since Peirce, as a logician, was always thinking about the way any
new idea was translated to EGs, note that an index is translated
to a line of identity. Peirce explicitly said that a single line,
by itself has a clear meaning: "There exists something." That is
a proposition -- a kind of Pheme.
To confirm this point, note that any logical subject, by itself, is
a monad attached to a line of identity. If the monad is -car, the
logical subject asserts the proposition "There is a car." The phrase
"There is" would be appropriate for a act of pointing by any index.
Note that I admitted that Gary made a valid criticism, and I was
happy to make an appropriate change to the diagram. I anybody
can find anything in that diagram that should be revised, I'd
be happy to make the change.
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 .
