Zeroth Law Of Semiotics • Discussion 3

Re: Zeroth Law Of SemioticsAll Liar, No Paradox
Re: FB | Charles S. Peirce SocietyKent Olson

KO:
The liar paradox is a self-referential paradox, yes?
I think Russell answered these.

Dear Kent,

Russell had no inkling of pragmatic semiotics so his perspective on signs and sign relations was bound to remain mired in syntacticism, in effect, a species of nominalism.  From a fully three-dimensional Peircean point of view we are able to ask, and we have to ask, what could it possibly mean for a sign to refer to itself?  Indeed, do signs refer to themselves at all, or is it only that interpreters refer signs to their objects?  The whole problem looks very different once we take that point of view.

Regards,

Jon

cc: Conceptual GraphsCyberneticsLaws of FormOntolog Forum
cc: FB | SemeioticsMathstodonStructural ModelingSystems Science

This entry was posted in Animata, C.S. Peirce, Denotation, Information = Comprehension × Extension, Liar Paradox, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Nominalism, Pragmatic Maxim, Semiositis, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Zeroth Law Of Semiotics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Zeroth Law Of Semiotics • Discussion 3

  1. 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:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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.