Mike, List: I am not sure that either "subsumes" or "synonymous/equivalent" is the right word here. According to Peirce's overall architectonic, the Categories come from phenomenology/phaneroscopy (cf. CP 1.280), which is more fundamental than logic as semeiotic, which in turn is more fundamental than metaphysics. In fact, phenomenology/phaneroscopy is the *most* fundamental of the positive sciences, so it is not surprising that the Categories permeate all of the others, including *both *semeiotic and metaphysics. Note that in this context, "X is more fundamental than Y" means that Y depends on X for its principles, and not the other way around (cf. CP 1.180). "Normative science rests largely on phenomenology and on mathematics; metaphysics on phenomenology and on normative science." (CP 1.186)
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Michael Bergman <m...@mkbergman.com> wrote: > Hi Edwina, > > On 10/20/2017 2:45 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > >> Mike - here, I strongly disagree with you, when you wrote: >> >> Your comment ' we need to talk about signs when our discourse is >> representation'...is something that is very common in the semiological >> world, but is, I suggest, invalid in the Peircean world. >> > > Please. Forget the labels and the easy dismissal that I have engaged in > some Saussurean fallacies here. > > All I am suggesting is to focus on the "nature of the object," which I > don't think I or Peirce would say is the same as the "nature of the sign". > > What I have tried to suggest is that the more fundamental "Peircean" > interpretation comes from the lens of the universal categories, which, by > the nature of usage and wealth of terminology, subsumes the notion of > semeiosis. 1ns, 2ns and 3ns provide a richer pool of concepts for > investigating metaphysical questions than does the terminology of > representation (signs). Otherwise, why does Peirce ever use them? > > None of this is to say the I like the child better than the parent or vice > versa, just that the universal categories are best suited to questions of > metaphysics, semiosis to sign representations. > > As an exercise, please just answer this three-choice question: > > A. Peirce's semiosis subsumes the idea of his universal categories > > B. Peirce's universal categories subsume the idea of his semiosis > > C. Peirce's semiosis is synonomous with/equivalent to the universal > categories. > > I don't believe that picking B requires me to burn at the stake. ;) > > Mike > > Semiosis and signs are NOT about 'representation' but about the >> true nature of reality and actuality - both of which function only within >> semiosis, which is to say, within the triadic Sign. Therefore - metaphysics >> and the 'true nature of Objects' is the real topic of discourse within any >> examination of Signs. >> >> That blueprint, as a rhematic iconic sinsign - is its semiosic >> definition as AN OBJECT. Nothing to do with 'representation' of the >> blueprint, but everything to do with defining its nature as an object. >> With defining how it exists and how we interact with it. >> >> Edwina >> > > -- > __________________________________________ > > Michael K. Bergman > Cognonto Corporation > 319.621.5225 > skype:michaelkbergman > http://cognonto.com > http://mkbergman.com > http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman > __________________________________________ >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
