Zeroth Law Of Semiotics

Meaning is a privilege not a right.
Not all pictures depict.
Not all signs denote.

Never confuse a property of a sign,
just for instance, existence,
with a sign of a property,
for instance, existence.

Taking a property of a sign
for a sign of a property
is the zeroth sign of
nominal thinking
and the first

Also Sprach 0*
2002 Oct 09

This entry was posted in Denotation, Epimenides, Extension, Liar Paradox, Logic, Nominalism, Peirce, Peirce List, Pragmatics, Pragmatism, Rhetoric, Semantics, Semiositis, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Syntax, Zeroth Law Of Semiotics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Zeroth Law Of Semiotics

  1. Pingback: Zeroth Law Of Semiotics • Comment 1 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

  2. Pingback: Zeroth Law Of Semiotics • Comment 5 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

  3. Pingback: Zeroth Law Of Semiotics • Comment 7 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

  4. JSD says:

    I learned something like this in undergrad as The Fallacy of Rules: to wrongly assume that a descriptive rule is actually a prescriptive rule. For example, I observe birds on a beach eating seaweed, and then later observe similar birds inland eating berries. I conclude that they must be two different species, because I have improperly assumed the behavior I observed is a defining property.

  5. techne9 says:

    Just found this on Facebook – shared by Mi Robin. It expanded my heart, and made me breathe a little more deeply. Lovely. Thanks for putting it on the webs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.