Nick, `Signs all the way down` ... hmm.
Such a theory strikes me as necessarily objective, in the sense that: 1) there is nothing that signs ultimately refer to, signs are not produced through reflection about the world. 2) that the corresponding system of signs is to be taken as the privileged frame of reality, there is no world. To the extent that you agree with this *characterization* of your own Piercean interpretation, what prevents the ultimate collapsing of sign (and reality) under Baudrillard's `sign as universal equivalent`? Wrt Sheldrake, I remember being tempted by his theory that the universe evolves through habit. I very much enjoy thinking that physical law began through arbitrary and frivolous fluctuations before settling on *what happened* *most*. In an effort to see where he would take such a theory, I found some youTube videos of him speaking. My favorite and perhaps most disillusioning was a talk he gave at Google, where with maybe six people in the room, I had the privilege to observe what a rhetor he was capable of being. Now, I almost never think about him or his theory. Jon
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
