Cathy, you wrote,
the most pertinent question about signs is whether they are *real*. And
whether they are real or not does not depend on their physical existence.
gf] Yes, that was my point. And that's one way we distinguish between
semiosis and physical existence. So you've answered your own question!
cl] I would be willing to wager that Peirce is ['pansemiotic'] too ("The
Universe is perfused with signs", objective idealism, etc)
That's a debate that has run its course on this list before, and I'm in no
rush to recycle it, so I'll leave it to someone else to take your bet. J
By the way, I don't think that "we are meant to reject Edwina's view". I
just said that I haven't yet found any use for it in trying to develop
and/or revise my own.
gary f.
From: Catherine Legg [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 23-Mar-14 8:56 PM
To: Gary Fuhrman; Peirce List
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:5459] Re: What kind of sign is
ANYTHING called "a
Hi Gary,
It's not meant to be a joke, I'm totally serious.
"Some signs physically exist and some do not". To me this sounds like
missing the point since the most pertinent question about signs is whether
they are *real*. And whether they are real or not does not depend on their
physical existence. Final causation is not efficient causation.
To that extent I don't see why we are meant to reject Edwina's view because
it is 'pansemiotic'. I think I am that way myself. And I would be willing to
wager that Peirce is too ("The Universe is perfused with signs", objective
idealism, etc)
Cheers, Cathy
From: Gary Fuhrman [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, 23 March 2014 1:51 a.m.
To: 'Peirce List'
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:5459] Re: What kind of sign is
ANYTHING called "a
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!
gary f.
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
