Dear Helmut list,
‘Man is a Sign.’ Accordingly, just as we say that a body is in motion, and not that motion is in a body we ought to say that we are in thought and not that thoughts are in us. With best wishes, Jerry R On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 3:32 PM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello List, > > I am having the idea that maybe semiotics is non-humanist. But what would > be humanist? Examples: > > - Kant said, that humans do not have value, but dignity, and that you > should not treat them merely as means, but always as aims too. > - In Buddhism people (and other organisms) have an innate Buddha-nature. > - In Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions, and in Brahmanism people have an > immortal soul. It is arguable however, whether religions are humanist or > rather their antithesises are. Depends on interpretation, I guess, and > whether one conceptualizes a benign or a wrathful God. > > In Semiotics it is all about signs, performance. In Capitalism it is about > the value in the sense of performance people give for serving the rich > ("human capital"). In Semiotics it is about the value/performance for the > phaneron. The interpreting system is not denied, but mostly ignored. So I > donot suspect,that semiotics is antihumanist, just nonhumanist, like just > not talking about the interpreters, but only about the interpretants. I > guess that is ok for some time, but at some point maybe it would be ok too > to take the interpreting systems, like people and other organisms into > account too, and combine semiotics with systems theories? What do you think? > > Best, > Helmut > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
