Jerry R, Clark, List, "The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the real. That is the way I would explain reality."
I wonder what the biosemioticians and students of that discipline on the list think about your exchange since the very processes of nature are seen by biosemiotics as, at least in part, semiotic. The Peirce quotation above would seem to concern human semiosis only. Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> wrote: > Clark, list: > > How is reality a process of semiosis if it's independent of what is > thought concerning the object? > > "The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who > investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in > this opinion is the real. That is the way I would explain reality." > > The object independent of semiosis is the real, no? Perhaps what you mean > by "real" is "truth"? > > Best, > Jerry R > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Clark Goble <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Jun 8, 2016, at 2:22 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> In semiosis <http://gnusystems.ca/TS/tpx.htm#trax> (the process of >> meaning), there is no sign without an interpretant, no interpretant without >> an object, no object without a sign. But in this ‘cooperation of three >> subjects,’ the *reality* of the one functioning as object is independent >> of its correlation with the other two cooperating subjects, the sign and >> its interpretant. The object and the interpretant are ‘the two correlates >> of the sign; the one being antecedent, the other consequent of the sign’ >> (Peirce, EP2:410) – but the reality of the *correlation* (experienced as >> the activity of meaning) does not constitute the reality of the *object*. >> ‘Reality is simply the character of being independent of what is thought >> concerning the real object’ (EP2:271). >> >> >> It’s worth adding that reality for Peirce would itself still be a process >> of semiosis just a semiosis that arrives at a stable development (habit). >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
