This makes some sense and I should have been clearer. Signs are a substance and the study of signs is the academic effort to understand them. Semiotics to me is vastly more than an academic effort to parse signs. I think the effort to parse Peirce is illustrative. Peirce is much more than I have seen recognized in recent discussions. If you do not agree that Signs are, prior to when we apprehend them, out there, possibly the very substance of what we think of as black holes --- the very basis for all that we can create meaning from, then we simply disagree. I will not be hemmed in by a definition of semiosis that appropriates it into any system of thought. It was here before thought was. Signs are all over. What we see is a fraction of all that there is. amazon.com/author/stephenrose
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 4:38 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Stephen R., List: > > Semeiotic is a *science*, not a substance; saying that it "is not a > branch of anything" is like saying that quantum mechanics is not a branch > of physics. If what you meant is that *semeiosis *is not a branch of > anything, then I agree; I believe that it is the most fundamental aspect of > Reality, which is why Semeiotic (the study of Signs) is a prerequisite for > Metaphysics (the study of Reality) in Peirce's classification of the > sciences. As I have quoted him often lately, "Metaphysics consists in the > results of the absolute acceptance of logical [i.e., semeiotic] principles > not merely as regulatively valid, but as truths of being" (CP 1.487; c. > 1896). > > 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 3:13 PM Stephen Curtiss Rose <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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 >> > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
