John, List,
the plot type is a sign type, but is it a sign? Or are only the tokens signs, because only they are perceived? Like a book that is read. And is the book only a sign when it is being read, because only then it is interpreted, and when it is closed, it sort of sleeps and is not a sign?
And is a complex system, like a person or a society, a sign too? If so, maybe a systems theory is not necessary, but a box-in-box-theory of signs, like a person who reads a book is a sign which interprets another sign. And when nothing is happening, the book is closed and the person asleep, there are no signs, but sign tokens and sign types.
So maybe it would be possible to translate all systems theory terms into Peircean "sign-" terms, and not use the term "system" at all?
Best,
Helmut
 
 12. August 2017 um 15:03 Uhr
 "John F Sowa" <s...@bestweb.net>
wrote:
 
On 8/11/2017 5:09 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> A system, I think, is defined by the part of its structure, that does
> not change. The system exists as long as this part of structure (set of
> relations) exists. Which part of the structure is used to define the
> system, can be arbitrary choice, but usually is something essential,
> whatever this means.

You could apply Peirce's classification of signs to this analysis.

As an example, consider the book _War and Peace_. Peirce would call
the physical book a sign token. The corresponding type would be
the entire text, considered as a string of chapters, paragraphs,
sentences, words -- independent of any method of presentation
or storage.

That type is an abstraction from the physical book. But there is
an even more general abstraction: the detailed plot of the book,
which is the same type for Tolstoy's original Russian and the
translation to English or any other language.

A very similar, but somewhat simplified plot type could be used
to classify a movie made from the book. The plot type for the
movie and the plot type for the book would both be special cases
of a more general plot type.

> Every system has a "Now". This is the signs, that happen every now,
> and this "now" travels through time.

You could apply that description to the movie as it is projected
on a screen (in a theater or on a computer).

But you could also apply it to the process of a person sitting
in a chair and reading the book -- in any language. That process
may be discontinuous, since people don't read _War and Peace_
in a single sitting.

John

-----------------------------
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 .



 
-----------------------------
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 .




Reply via email to