Cathy, you asked:

 

"How does one clearly distinguish between semiosis and physical existence?"

 

I don't get the point of your question (I don't get the joke, I guess!) One
makes that clear distinction by defining "semiosis", and using the word
"existence", in the way that Peirce did. From that it follows that some
signs physically exist and some do not, and in any given semiotic analysis,
some physically existing things are signs and others are not. Unless of
course it's a pansemiotic analysis like Edwina's!

 

Anyway I'm sure we'll hear from Vinicius next week!

 

gary f.

 

From: Catherine Legg [mailto:cl...@waikato.ac.nz] 
Sent: 21-Mar-14 5:21 AM
To: Gary Fuhrman
Cc: Peirce List
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:5459] Re: What kind of sign is
ANYTHING called "a

 

Hi Gary!

 

Thanks for this overview of the contemporary bio-semiotic landscape as you
see it. I find such synoptic thinking really helpful myself. I just have a
couple of scattered remarks.

 

In Sao Paulo in November 2012 I went to a very interesting presentation by
Vinicius on his solenoid of semiosis. My understanding is that it is
considerably more complex than a simple spiral insofar as it draws on
Peirce's 'three threes' of sign-analysis (qualisign-sinsign-legisign,
icon-index-symbol, term-proposition-argument) which produce 9 possibilities.
Its diagram was at least three dimensional on the screen if I remember
rightly. Perhaps Vinicius, who I understand is on the list, can tell us
more.   

 

Regarding your criticism of Edwina's view that, "it doesn't clearly
distinguish between semiosis and physical existence"

How does one clearly distinguish between semiosis and physical existence? J

 

Cheers, Cathy

 

-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .




Reply via email to