At 05:40 PM 1/28/2015, Gary Richmond wrote:
Ben wrote:
In the case of object, sign, interpretant, insofar as the object
determines the sign to determine the interpretant to be determined
by the object as the sign is determined by the object, the order of
semiotic determination is 'object, sign, interpretant', although
object, sign, interpretant are not to be understood as acting like
successive falling dominoes.
HP: I don't think I can assimilate this kind of abstract description
without some specific examples. I would like to understand how these
general concepts can be used in an actual description of a realistic
case of biosemiosis?
For example, a molecular biologist or a biosemiotician would briefly
describe a case in normal language like this: The base triplets in
the gene are symbols that are interpreted (pace Barbieri who uses
"coded") by the cell (a very complex process that is itself coded in
the genes) so as to determine (construct) the protein object.
Of course I agree with Ben that this triadic
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22semiotic%20closure%22&itool=QuerySuggestion>semiotic
closure of symbol, interpreter, object, "is not to be understood as
acting like successive falling dominoes."
Gary R: One also, I suppose, ought in this connection rehearse
Peirce's use of the concept of determination, which is, of course,
not physical determination.
HP: In normal language one does say that the genetic symbols in an
essential way physically determine the protein objects (along with
many epigenetic modulations).
Howard
-----------------------------
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 .
