> On Jul 31, 2014, at 2:37 AM, Sungchul Ji <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes. That is what I am saying, and I too distinguish between material > process of semiotics and semiotics in general. My working hypothesis is > that > > "Physics of words/signs is necessary but (073114-2) > not sufficient for their semiosis." > > or that > > "No equilibrium structures can carry out semiosis (073114-3) > unless and until transformed into dissipative > structures by being activated by input of free > energy. For example, words on a piece of paper > must be lit before they can convey information."
Right, but again that is an ontological assumption of the underlying substrate for semiotic process. Those who adopt a more idealist rather than materialist ontology will simply not agree with that. And indeed Peirce, in both his early and mature phases, would disagree with that conception. (Again, noting that one can simply mine Peircean semiotics without taking all his thought) Thus my point about knowledge of a system and whether that system can be conceived of semiotically.
----------------------------- 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 .
