Edwina, List: ET: I disagree with your 'referential' definition of the Sign.
It is not *my *definition, it is *Peirce's*. If you do not believe me, then just read through the Commens Dictionary entry <http://www.commens.org/dictionary/term/sign>, or Robert Marty's compilation <http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/rsources/76DEFS/76defs.HTM> of "76 Definitions of the Sign by C. S. Peirce." ET: My understanding of a Sign ... is that it is a *morphological instantiation of data as mediated by laws*. This is not *Peirce's *definition--i.e., not *any *of his *many *definitions--it is *yours*. I have repeatedly acknowledged our longstanding disagreement about this, and have repeatedly expressed a desire not to rehash it; so why keep bringing it up? ET: I disagree with your reductionism. I disagree with your characterization, which is a tiresome rhetorical ploy with no basis in anything that I have actually advocated. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 5:32 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > JAS list > > 1] You wrote: "Where on earth have I ever "denied that physical things can > be signs"? In your specific example of a rock, the rock is not the Sign, > it is the Object of the Sign; but we could easily construct a different > scenario > in which the rock is a Sign of something else--perhaps a treasure that is > buried below it. I have acknowledged on multiple occasions that anything > is a Sign of itself in a trivial sense, but unless it represents something > else (Object) to something else (Interpretant)--i.e., mediates between > two other correlates--it is not properly called a Sign" > > I disagree with your 'referential' definition of the Sign. My > understanding of a Sign - and again, I stress that I mean the full > irreducible triad of O-R-I - is that it is a morphological instantiation > of data as mediated by laws. So, a Rock IS a Sign in itself. No- not > merely when it is used in a symbolic sense for 'the site of buried > treasure' - but, in itself, as a chemical compound of raw data [sand, > chemicals etc] which are the Object, and then as mediatively formed by > the laws which-form-rocks....into the Interpretant which is that > particular Rock. > > 2] And, you wrote: "Moreover, if the entire Universe is composed of > Signs, then Peirce's theorem of the science of semeiotics entails that the > entire Universe constitutes one Sign. For more on that, please see what > I just posted in the other thread, including the fact that Peirce explicitly > stated, "the entire body of all thought is a sign, supposing all thought > to be more or less connected" > > I disagree with your reductionism. A 'common Sign' requires connection; > this can be by commonality of mediative laws; it can be iconically > [photocopy]; it can be indexically [plant vines] but - the Universe is also > diverse and many instantiations do NOT share commonalities. What is common > to the Universe is the process of semiosis - generating morphological > instances within laws. But the results are diverse and open to chance and > differentiation. > > Edwina >
----------------------------- 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 .
