Zeroth Law Of Semiotics • Comment 6

Re: Peirce List

By way of orientation to the task at hand, we are investigating a type of slippage that occurs in the gap between natural language, with the natural assumptions it has evolved to take for granted, rightly or wrongly, and the discipline of logic as normative semiotics.

Just to be clear about my own take on the task, I am not trying to set forth any universal conclusions about self-reference — prior to beginning a thorough analysis I would probably guess that some forms of real or apparent self-reference do make sense while others are more problematic.

One of the things we have our pragmatism for is to clear up conceptual confusions — here I am taking a single example of one such confusion, the so-called liar paradox, to illustrate how setting a communicational problem within the frame of a triadic sign relation and applying the tools of pragmatic analysis (for starters, the pragmatic maxim) can serve to clarify the problematic situation, even to the point of a full resolution.

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

2 Responses to Zeroth Law Of Semiotics • Comment 6

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

  2. Pingback: Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 3 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

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 )

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.