Hi Soren,
Which comment is for me?
Also, I want to clarify the following:
(1) 'Semiotics' is the name given to the study of signs generally and existed
since long before Peirce's time (1839-1914).
(2) If we represent 'semiotics' as a large circle, it will contain many small
sub-circles representing various theories about sign processes, including
Peirce's own, yours, mine, and many others', each sub-circles contributing to
the complete description of the large circle.
(3) In this Venn diagrammatic sense, 'neo-semiotics' is a sub-circle belonging
to the large circle of Semiotics that should have some overlap with the
Peircean semiotics since it is an extension of the latter. Further,
neo-semiotics has many new features not contained in the Peircean semiotics
(e.g., molecular signs and their mechanisms of action driven by free energy
dissipation, the essential thermodynamic requirement for semiosis, and the
relation between micro- and macrosemiotics, etc.) and hence cannot be
completely contained within the sub-circle of the Peircean semiotics.
All the best.
Sung
________________________________
From: Søren Brier <sbr....@cbs.dk>
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2018 10:32 AM
To: Loet Leydesdorff; Joseph Brenner; Terrence W. DEACON; Alex Hankey; Fis,
Cc: Emanuel Diamant; Sungchul Ji
Subject: RE: [Fis] Response to Sungchul. Generative Logic
Dear Pedro
Their seems to be some malfunction in the system. Three comments – the last one
to Sung – have not appeared on the list. Could you investigate?
Best
Søren Brier
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
