BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
I think that Stjernfelt's book Natural Propositions ... on
DiciSigns examines the semiosic process in these realms. There are
three types of Dicisigns. The Dicent Sinsign [ dicent indexical
sinsign]. The Dicent indexical Legisign. The Dicent Symbolic
Legisign.
That is - the informational exchange is by direct physical
connections. But a symbol is not merely convention; it is also a
general; that is, could the interaction between the Sign triad and
Dynamic Object be not merely a descriptive existential exchange which
is indexical-iconic, but could it be a reference to the general laws
held within the Dynamic Object such that a 'shared reality' could be
developed.
I'd agree that the Dynamic Interpretant would be a given actual
instantiation. ..and could be dicent or even more openly vague and
rhematic.
I think that the Rhematic Indexical Legisign also plays a role in
this system - It's not part of the three Dicent examples given by
Stjernfelt -but is, I feel, a key class of semiosis in the Peircean
analysis.
Edwina
-
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca
On Thu 06/04/17 3:36 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
List:
With the discussions going on in a couple of threads about semeiosis
in the physico-chemical and biological realms, a question occurred to
me. What class of Sign is a law of nature? I am not referring to
how we describe a law of nature in human language, an equation, or
other representation of it; I am talking about the law of nature
itself, the real general that governs actual occurrences.
As a law, it presumably has to be a Legisign. What is its Dynamic
Object--the inexhaustible continuum of its potential instantiations,
perhaps? How should we characterize its S-O relation? It is not
conventional (Symbol), so is it an existential connection (Index)?
What is its Dynamic Interpretant--any given actual instantiation,
perhaps? How should we characterize its S-I relation--Dicent, like a
proposition, or Rheme, like a term?
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
-----------------------------
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 .
