Your "binary" scholars/everyone else is apposite and that is ironical because Peirce owes the limited degree of awareness about him that exists to schoilars or individuals who were aware of his significance and made their awareness clear. The exegetical reductionism here is (what did he mean???) suggests we have become increasingly unable to frame concepts and theories that resonate among "everyone". I think a good example of the problem is the term "binary". I have made almost a fetish in my writings for ten years suggesting that binary thinking is realty the dregs, especially in the Trump era. Finally, the other day I encountered a piece in the NYT that used the term binary in a featured headline. That was an event to me because the NYT remains shakily but tangibly the paper of record. I regularly write comments on NYT stories and tweets that reflect concerns you find regularly in Deely and even in his exemplary mentor Poinsot. Not to mention Peirce. I have given up on trying to link my concern to this list because I am clearly not seen here as I see myself. The linkage between me and Peirce is because I make him the leader of a movement aimed at everyone in which memorial maxims will be the basis for conscious actions and expressions. I relate him to Nietzsche and Wittgenstein as first among equals. The world does not even know his name. They do not understand we already live in a triadic universe. The concerns here are abstruse and of little importance elsewhere.They are extraneous to what might be termed inquiry at large. Semiotics is what Deely said it is. So is the fragmentation of scholarship and the corporatized and excluding academy. Healthcare seems to be the model for academics. Sorry to go off because. I know I am preaching to deaf ears. Or else saying what everyone thinks, old stuff. But you just said the same thing so at least I can write a note and say yes.
@stephencrose at twitter . On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 3:10 PM John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > On 11/1/2018 12:10 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > Just curious, why do you prefer Predicate and Proposition to the > > more general Rheme and Dicisign? > > There are two important audiences: > > 1. Peirce scholars who are doing the detailed textual analysis to > determine as exactly as possible what Peirce meant at every > stage of his career. > > 2. The rest of the world. > > I was not addressing Peirce scholars. Their work is important, > and I don't deny that. But they will get zero support (funding) > and attention (readers) unless and until the world is aware of > Peirce's work and its value. I believe that it's essential > to bring Peirce to the attention of *everybody* who uses signs. > > Even at APA conferences, discussions of Peirce are limited to sessions > that only Peirce scholars attend. One obstacle is Peirce's obscure > terminology -- for which the scholarly term is rebarbative. > > The words 'predicate' and 'proposition' are synonyms for 'rheme' > and 'dicisign' -- Peirce himself used them that way. I challenge > anybody to find an example for which rheme and dicisign have a > more general meaning than predicate and proposition. > > > I think that Qualisign/Sinsign/Legisign is more appropriate > > Those are fine words to use in an article addressed to Peirce > scholars. But the pair token/type is widely known and used > by people who have no idea where it comes from. Those people > are happy to hear that mark/token/type comes from Peirce, but > the word 'tone' seems to be too narrow. And you could never get > them to remember any one of the words Qualisign/Sinsign/Legisign. > > > Jerry C.: Sheriff's similar table would indeed seem to qualify > > as another (and earlier) "complete schema for addressing all nine > > terms of the triple triad in a coherent narrative." Do you agree? > > If not, why not? > > I certainly agree that Sheriff's 150-page book is a very good > introduction for anybody who wants to study Peirce's writings. > > But I wrote signs.pdf as a 12-page introduction for people who > need words to use in their own speaking and writing. > > No logician would ever use the words 'rheme' or 'dicisign' instead > of 'predicate' and 'proposition'. Linguists commonly use the words > 'token' and 'type'. They could be persuaded to adopt 'mark'. > But qualisign/sinsign/legisign doesn't have a prayer of a chance > of a snowball in hell. > > John >
----------------------------- 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 .
