Re: Peirce List
I still have in mind trying to show how the principle I dubbed the Zeroth Law Of Semiotics can help us see what is really going on with a number of old puzzles like the Liar Paradox, but the discussion that ensued ranged far more widely than I had anticipated, so give me a while to collect my thoughts and I’ll return to the subject another day.
For anyone else who may have gotten lost along the way, here are the blog posts that I used to chart the discussion in my own mind, patched together from my half of the conversation:
Inquiry Into Inquiry 
Lol. Love it. I think — if u are saying that it is All merely meaning, and some inherent property of statements is a lie in itself, a categorical error of constrewing the veracity of statements based upon some ‘primal’ statement that says statements hold a potential to relate truth. They only represent meaning; they do not convey truth.
I thought I had dispatched that old choice-knot about the Liar Paradox, at least from my own mind, a long time ago, by tumbling to the fact that some signs do not denote, at least not what they are unwittingly taken to denote. But recent allusions to the Liar brought it back to mind, and this time I noticed a bit more of the cognitive, communicational, contextual, and even cultural aspects of the problem as they developed in discussions here and there. So I’ve been thinking a little more about that.
Pingback: Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 3 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 4 | Inquiry Into Inquiry