Jon, list,
Jon wrote:
JAS: To clarify, I wholeheartedly agree that the Categories play a
significant role throughout Peirce's entire architectonic. The assertion
that I questioned was that they are "central to semiotic," which I took to
imply that they are somehow more prominent in that branch
Jon AS and Gary R,
JAS
Why expect Peirce to mention logic as semeiotic in connection
with phenomenology, when he explicitly classified it as a
Normative Science?
To show the relationships more clearly, I attached another copy
of CSPsemiotic.jpg. Note that Peirce placed formal logic under
Gary R., List:
GR: While perhaps "every perception involves signs," as several have
noted, signs are not studied in phenomenology but in logic as semeiotic.
Representation/mediation (3ns) is *one *irreducible element of the
Phaneron, but so is quality (1ns), and so is reaction (2ns).
GR: I
Jon, John, Francesco, Gary F, Auke, list,
I too am mystified as to why John is suggesting that semeiotic should be
placed below phenomenology in Peirce's classification of sciences. As JAS
wrote: Why expect Peirce to mention logic as semeiotic in connection with
phenomenology, when he explicitly
John S., List:
I am still puzzled. Why expect Peirce to mention logic as semeiotic in
connection with phenomenology, when he explicitly classified it as a
Normative Science?
Also, in what sense are his Categories "central to semiotic"? His
trichotomies for Sign classification are divisions
Auke, Francesco, Frances, Gary F, and Jon AS,
I agree with your points, but none of them explain one important
issue: Peirce's categories of 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns are central to
semiotic, and they are usually called *phenomenological* categories.
But in that classification of 1903, he did not
List:
I agree with Gary F. and Francesco, and share Auke's puzzlement that there
is any question about this.
CSP: Normative Science has three widely separated divisions: (i)
*Esthetics*; (ii) *Ethics*; (iii) *Logic*.
Esthetics is the science of ideals, or of that which is objectively
admirable
John, list,
I have to agree with Francesco and Auke. I’m guessing that you don’t want to
include semiotics with logic, as Peirce did in the Syllabus classification of
1903 (without using the word “semiotic”), because it doesn’t seem normative
enough. Peirce recognized the problem here and had
Frances to John and listers---
Wherever semiotics and logics might be located in a classification of the
sciences, it could be that only "formal" semiotics was intended to be the new
thrust for logics, but not a new label for logics; nor seemingly was it
intended that all of semiotics broadly
John, Frances,
I am puzzled. Speculative rhetoric the first branch of non-mathematical logic
is an alias for semiotics. There is no reason at all to look elsewhere in the
classification of the science.
Auke
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: John F Sowa
Verzonden: maandag 10 september
10 matches
Mail list logo
