I think this is the basic distinction between the Representamen, the habits of
formation, which are 'real' but not existentially particular - and the
existentially particular unit or token (the Object and Interpretant) - and the
relation between the two modes: the habit and the existential. This
relationship, the relationship of mediation, is active, and thus, does involve
work and exchanges of energy/information. So, I disagree that Peirce did not
work on this aspect of semiosis; it's the basis of his semiosis - that constant
networking of the Representamen with other Representamens (the action of
generalization); the constant networking of the Sign, in its triadic sense,
with other Signs.
i don't agree with Sung's outline, which is a postmodernist nominalism,
because it ignores both that objective reality exists outside of the perception
of humans and it ignores a fundamental nature of Peircean semiosis; that the
sign exists - in its own interactions; that is, objective reality exists on
its own. For example, the word on the page is, as a material unit, a sign. It
exists as ink-on-paper. It does not have to be read by a human in order to
exist.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Søren Brier
To: Clark Goble ; Sungchul Ji ; Peirce-L
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 2:19 PM
Subject: SV: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for
Dear Clark and list
My I add a few thoughts? I agree that sign are reals, but when they manifests
as tokens their Secondness must enter the world of physics and thermodynamics
must apply. It is work to make signs emerge in non-verbal communication or as
language from ones feeling and thoughts. Even to produces thoughts and feeling
demands work. That would be a biosemiotic view (but one that we have not
discussed much). But I think you are correct in saying that Peirce did not do
any work on this aspect of sign production.
Best
Søren
Fra: Clark Goble [mailto:[email protected]]
Sendt: 31. juli 2014 20:11
Til: Sungchul Ji; Peirce-L
Emne: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for
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 .
-----------------------------
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 .
