Gary F - Ah, now I get your point. I wasn't sure what you meant by 'undermines' because you wrote: a pansemiotic view tends to undermine a synechistic view. But this is not necessarily true of all pansemiotic views.
So, I was confused whether you actually meant 'undermine' or 'underlies'..because if "A pansemiotic view tends to undermine....then...how does one determine the pansemiotic view that doesn't? I wouldn't say that a pansemiotic view is that 'everything is a sign'; I don't consider a mechanical kick of the can to be a sign. But I do consider that the atoms and molecules of the physico-chemical realm are signs because they function within a triadic morphology. And this morphology does indeed include laws as habits of formation and interaction, ie, Thirdness. Since the physico-chemical realm is an integral component of the biological realm, which I presume you will acknowledge is semiosic, then, I don't see how you can reject the reality of the physico-chemical laws (Thirdness) which both enable and constrain the biological realm. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary Fuhrman To: 'Peirce List' Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 1:50 PM Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:5459] Re: What kind of sign is ANYTHING called "a Edwina, "undermines/underlies"? To me those verbs are opposites! A pansemiotic view, I take it, is that everything is a sign, just as a pantheist view is that everything is God. For instance, a pansemiotician might argue that since the laws of nature are signs, every law-abiding phenomenon is a semiotic phenomenon. To me that undermines (not underlies!) the idea that semiotic phenomena instantiate Thirdness to a degree that distinguishes them clearly from nonsemiotic phenomena; and a distinct idea of Thirdness is necessary for synechism. gary f. From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 1-Apr-14 11:00 AM To: Gary Fuhrman; Peirce List Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:5459] Re: What kind of sign is ANYTHING called "a Gary, you wrote: That's why I'm inclined to think that a pansemiotic view tends to undermine a synechistic view. But this is not necessarily true of all pansemiotic views. I certainly agree that a pansemiotic view undermines/underlies a synechistic view; indeed, it, to me, underlies all semiosis. But, what do YOU mean by 'a pansemiotic view'? Edwina ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
