Semiotics is not a branch of anything. It is the real substance that are signs. They have substance as does the universe. To discuss semiotics as a subset of anything else is like discussing air as a subset of a breath or water as what I am drinking rather than water in all of its substance. Merely because sins cannot be seen is no argument against their substance. We cannot see most of the things that have been proved to be the foundations of matter. When I read Peirce I assume he was way ahead of all of us but that he was also a creature of his time and had capacities all of us know from ourselves were limited by earth time. Could he speak now he would probably disabuse us all because he would know things that both confirm his inklings and thrusts and things that he did not know.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary F., List: > > Again, my point about Speculative Grammar is that it is a branch of > Semeiotic, which is coextensive with the Normative Science of logic (in > what you have called "the broader sense"). Whether Speculative Grammar as > "Formal Semeiotic" is considered prescriptive or descriptive--I happen to > think that it is both--is irrelevant to *where *it is situated *within > *Peirce's > classification of the sciences. It definitely *does not* fall under > Phenomenology. > > Besides the December 1908 draft letters to Lady Welby, in *Peirce's > Speculative Grammar: Logic as Semiotics*, Francesco Bellucci cites two > other taxonomies of Signs in Peirce's manuscripts that included > Seme/Pheme/Delome--an undated one-page fragment (R 795), which Bellucci > considers a "polished and compact version" of that same scheme; and a Logic > Notebook entry dated "1906 Aug 31" (R 339:424[285r]), where they replace > the crossed-out Rheme/Dicisign/Argument. Interestingly, only a day earlier > he had written Term/Sentence/Movement of Thought (R 339:423[284r]; 1906 Aug > 30), so this was apparently when he definitively decided that he needed the > new words. Are there any *other *taxonomies from 1906 or later that used > *different > *terms for the division according to the Sign's relation with its Final > Interpretant? > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:25 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Jon, the question of whether speculative grammar is properly normative >> may be irrelevant to your “bottom line”, but it is quite relevant to any >> practitioner of the science, because it determines whether his practice is >> prescriptive or descriptive. >> >> On the “Seme” issue I agree with you, but I have a question about your >> statement that “Peirce himself used "Seme" in *every *taxonomy of Signs >> that he attempted after he introduced it in 1906.” He did use it in the >> taxonomy of the Dec. 1908 Welby letters, but what *other* taxonomies did >> he attempt after 1906? >> >> Gary f. >> > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
