BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon, list
I like your comment:
" But the real issue is not about
the cardinality or topology of any sub-posed continuum,
"signiferous ether",
or semiotic medium so much as the empirical data streams we
actually have,
which are captured categorically and coded discretely as sequences
of signs. "
Exactly. After all [unless you are an essentialist], then there is
no such thing as a separate or even topologically discrete
'signiferous ether', for the mediation process - which is not the
same as the particular - is an integral component of the empirical
data streams of 'sequences of signs'.
Edwina
On Sat 09/11/19 1:02 PM , Jon Awbrey jawb...@att.net sent:
Cf: Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations : 8
At:
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/11/09/semiotics-semiosis-sign-relations-%e2%80%a2-8/
Continuing questions about "infinite semiosis" vs. "unbounded
semiosis"
prompt me to make another comment by way of bringing our focus to
bear
on the empirical context of semiosis and sign relations.
The semiotic question goes back to a line from Peirce and the uses
later
writers like Eco and Derrida made of it. But the real issue is not
about
the cardinality or topology of any sub-posed continuum, "signiferous
ether",
or semiotic medium so much as the empirical data streams we actually
have,
which are captured categorically and coded discretely as sequences
of signs.
Regards,
Jon
-----------------------------
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 .
