Boris...
Seeking a label to identify a general philosophy in support of
angloamerican sign theory, or of any revisionist sign theory in
general, seems an ongoing chore for me. The term "realism" is
correct but far too broad, because there are several brands of
realism. The term "idealist realism" is also correct but ignores
the pragmatist necessity. The term "realist pragmatism" may be
closer to a clear label but ignores the idealist and naturalist
necessity. The term "pragmatism" or even "pragmaticism" is also
correct but tends to drift from its wider realist base. The term
"idearealism" has been suggested but has no tradition behind it
to draw upon.
The suggested term "dialectic naturalism" which turns on a
naturalist debate or discourse would differ from "dialectic
materialism" which turns more on a socialist debate or discourse,
but in any event the term "dialectic" in regard to an overall key
philosophy would seem inadequate to carry the weight. The
dialectic theory and process would of course be useful as a
special support within any general philosophy. What might be
claimed for dialectics could also be claimed for such theories as
informatics and grammatics, or significs and critics, or
methodics and rhetorics, all of which factor into semiotics and
linguistics as the grand divisions of signage signs and language
signs. The term "naturalism" furthermore may be too narrow for a
philosophy that attempts to potentially account for the whole
world, since "naturalism" implies a kind of corporeal
materialistic atheism, or perhaps a limit to the world as being
only of nature and phenomena. The problem with "naturalism" alone
as a key philosophic support is that it correctly posits a cause
to action in nature but a cause without any admitted continuity
or purpose.
--Frances
