[CG] Re: Zeroth Law Of Semiotics

Cf: Zeroth Law Of Semiotics • Discussion 3 http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2022/12/14/zeroth-law-of-semiotics-discussion… Re: All Liar, No Paradox https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/08/01/all-liar-no-paradox/ Re: Zeroth Law Of Semiotics https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/07/30/zeroth-law-of-semiotics/ Re: FB | Charles S. Peirce Society https://www.facebook.com/groups/peircesociety/posts/2761722340630407/ ::: Kent Olson https://www.facebook.com/groups/peircesociety/posts/2761722340630407/?comme… All, A recent discussion on Facebook led me to explain a point about semiotics I fancy a wee bit better than I've ever done before. <QUOTE KO:> The liar paradox is a self-referential paradox, yes? I think Russell answered these. </QUOTE> 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