Am I believing my eyes? Your written word just conveyed energy to my fingers to say NO. This distinction like many is a binary fantasy. A needless distinction. Words written and spoken are the transitional stage between signs and our indexing of them as signs move toward expression and action. They are what we use to limit and make manageable the vague and extensive aspects of signs and enable some consideration of them. All words limit. All words are subject to being understood not as they are intended to be understood but as the hearer or reader perceives them. Between what one says and what one writes there is only a difference of means. It is also the case that when we are hearing or reading words stimulate the creation of signs within us which we name with ... more words.
You wrote: >Thus, we can recognize two classes of "words" --- (i) written words >belonging to ES, and (ii) spoken words belonging to DS. Written words >cannot perform any work since they do not have any energy. Again, no. *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote: > Dear Gary F, > > I hope you don't mind if I jump in. > > As you know, Prigogine (1917-2003) divided all structures in the Universe > into two classes - equilibrium structures (ES) and dissipative structures > (DS) [1, 2]. ESs do not but DSs do need to dissipate free energy for them > to exist. I think the ES-DS theory of Prigogine can be applied to > linguistics and semiotics generally. > > Thus, we can recognize two classes of "words" --- (i) written words > belonging to ES, and (ii) spoken words belonging to DS. Written words > cannot perform any work since they do not have any energy. They are like a > hammer, an ES, which cannot move matter until an agent inputs some energy > into it by, say, lifting and ramming it down on the head of a nail. But > spoken words, being sound waves (which are DSs), can perform work because > they possess energy and hence can move matter, for example, causing the > ear drum to vibrate. > > So, I would say that > > "Words, as written, cannot, but words as spoken, (6231-1) > can, move matter." > > or more generally > > "Signs as equilibrium structures cannot but (6231-2) > signs as dissipative structures can move matter." > > A corollary of (6231-2) would be that > > "Since semiosis cannot occur without moving matter, (6321-3) > the signs mediating semiosis must be dissipative > structures." > > I postulated that all dissipative structures (or 'dissipatons', more > briefly [3]) require both information (gn-) and energy (-ergy), i.e., > gnergy, for them to exist. Discrete units of gnergy are referred to as > "gnergons". Hence, dissipatons are gnergons are more or less synonymous, > the former emphasizing thermodynamics and the latter both thermodynamics > and informatics. Using these neologisms, Statement (6321-3) can be > re-expressed as > > "Signs mediating semiosis are dissipatons (or gnergons)." (6321-4) > > Or > > "Peircean signs are gnergons." [4] (6321-5) > > > The interesting quotes of Peirce you cite below seem to indicate that > > "Peirce was aware of the essential role (6321-6) > of energy dissipation in semiosis." > > Hence, > > "Peircean semiotics is consistent with the gnergon theory (6321-7) > of self-organization, including semiosis." > > > With all the best. > > Sung > ___________________________________________________ > Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. > Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology > Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology > Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy > Rutgers University > Piscataway, N.J. 08855 > 732-445-4701 > > www.conformon.net > > References: > [1] Kondepudi, D. (2008). Introduction to Thermodynamics, John Wiley & > Sons, Inc., Chichester. > [2] Kondepudi, D. and Prigogine, I. (1998). Modern Thermodynamics: > From Heat Engine to Dissipative Structures, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., > Chichester. > [3] Ji, S. (2012). Principle of Self-Organization and Dissipative > Structures. In: Molecular Theory of the Living Cell: Concepts, > Molecular Mechanisms, and Biomedical Applications. Springer, New York. > Pp. 69-80. PDF available at http://www.conformon.net under > Publications > Book Chapters. > [4] Ji, S. (2012). Peircean Signs as Gnergons. In: Molecular Theory > of the Living Cell: Concepts, Molecular Mechanisms, and Biomedical > Applications. Springer, New York. Pp. 176-180. PDF available at > http://www.conformon.net under Publications > Book Chapters. > > > > > > Edwina, you say that Words don't move matter. â EURO " but Iâ EURO (tm)d > > say that > human > > actions move matter quite a lot, and words (or rather signs) can do a lot > > of teleodynamic work in determining the form of human actions, if the > > signs have what Peirce called â EURO oelogical energyâ EURO : â EURO oeit > > is in action > > that logical energy returns to the uncontrolled and uncriticizable parts > > of the mindâ EURO (EP2:241). This leads him to the version of the pragmatic > > maxim with which he ended his Harvard Lectures of 1903: > > > > â EURO oeThe elements of every concept enter into logical thought at the > > gate > of > > perception and make their exit at the gate of purposive action; and > > whatever cannot show its passports at both those two gates is to be > > arrested as unauthorized by reason.â EURO > > > > If this describes a recursive process of the kind Stan and Wendy and I > > have in mind, it seems that the â EURO oeuncontrolled and uncriticizable > > parts > > of the mindâ EURO are causally connected to the physical world contiguous > > to > > both â EURO oegatesâ EURO , and this causal connection actually closes the > > loop so > > that logical energy can â EURO oereturnâ EURO to the physical world it > > emerged > from > > (and thus inform it). Does that make sense to you? > > > > > > > > gary f. > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] > > Sent: 25-Jul-14 3:45 PM > > To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee > > Subject: [biosemiotics:6229] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for > > > > > > > > Stan - the discourses or narratives that we use to 'talk about' reality > > don't affect that reality. Words don't move matter. > > > > > > > > The FACT that a species adapts to its environment is found in all > > cultures; this is not 'very general'. The narrative of causality may be > > different (gods, spirits, random mutations, informational feedback) but > > that's not relevant. That's because, again, words don't move matter. The > > scientific material causes are not 'constructs' of discourse but exist > 'in > > matter' and thus are completely outside of discourse; that is, it can be > > shown that a material mutation of a gene has clear results in the > > offspring - and words and discourse are irrelevant. > > > > > > > > So, if our scientific method can show that x affects y, and x is NOT a > > discourse but a material existentiality...then, the relation is true. > > Words are not relevant to this relationship. > > > > > > > > Again, you are misunderstanding 'realism'. Realism refers to an > acceptance > > that general laws of organization of matter exist - even if they only > > 'exist' when they organize a particular individual unit; i.e., these > > general laws can't exist on their own. (I'm not a Platonist). > > > > > > > > These laws exist quite outside of the discourses and narratives that we > > have about the natural world. If you consider that a god provides you > with > > food rather than that a seed will grow into a wheat plant, then, you will > > never move into a societal mode where you consider that IF you don't eat > > all the seeds, but retain half and sow them in the ground next year - > > you'll have food. But other cultures DID realize this - and didn't rely > on > > the gods or the West to move into agriculturalism. > > > > > > 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 > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
