I mean that signs are prior to language and thus are closer to reality and thus transcend in that sense. Peirce seems to place emphasis of the amorphousness, vagueness and essential independence of signs untol they are named in which case we have entered the picture and created signs. I suppose when I think of semiotics I am thinking about this locus of signs in the individual. If all thought is in signs as Peirce suggested all thought is in individuals.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:13 PM, Jerry LR Chandler < jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote: > List, Stephen > > On Jul 5, 2018, at 2:59 PM, Stephen Curtiss Rose <stever...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > One good reason for semiotics is its transcending of language. > > > Are you placing the cart before the horse? > > Historically, the opposite appears to be the case. > The very constrained meaning of any sign motivates the genesis of > languages. > > Cheers > Jerry > >
----------------------------- 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 .
