Dear Terry list,
I think you are giving your explanation for how one goes from ‘the primary focus of biosemiotics and cybersemiotics’ to ‘Man is a Sign’. That is the thought we are in, but I suppose there are other ways.. Hth, Jerry R On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 11:43 AM Terry L Rankin <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks, Helmut! > > > > My question was more philosophical than scientific, I think. Perhaps “sign > utterance and reception” as such roughly maps onto linguistics and > communications, while the “capability of uttering and receiving signs” > refers to the cognitive (semiotic) predispositions to utter and receive > signs. Simple ‘send / receive’ seems more fitting than ‘utterance and > reception’ perhaps – both humans and microwave towers possess inherent > predispositions to send and receive signs (or signals), but the difference > is categorical, I think: signal towers are neither sentient nor sapient but > semiosic humans are both (in name at least). > > > > My initial response would be ‘yes’ to both questions: the (communications > or linguistic) science of sending and receiving signs (or signals) would > include or at least intersect with the (physical and cognitive) sciences > concerning the (electronic or neurological) predispositions forming the > capacity to do so – specifically as prerequisites for that capacity. > “Reasons” for doing so strikes me as another can of worms entirely, > regarding motives, intents, purposes, etc. for exercising that capability. > > > > RE: organisms as signs, or specifically “Man is a sign” -- don’t > semioticians generally agree that signs may be primitive, compound, > complex, more or less systematically or haphazardly arranged, sent, > received, etc.? As sign systems, ordinary languages (all 7,000+ of them) as > well as specialized languages (maths, programming, codes, etc.) appear to > be clear examples where form and structure (syntax?) contain and carry > (send / receive) meaning and relevance, belief and truth (semantics?), > usually (but not always) to serve some purpose (pragmatics?). Inasmuch as > these all relate mainly if not entirely to *symbolic* semiotics, when the > wider 1stness and 2ndness of iconicity and indexically fold into the > semiotic fabric, then it seems quite plausible to view both living > (organisms) and non-living things (everything else) as being (more or less) > complex arrangements of (more or less) systematically interrelated signs of > all three kinds. I take this to be the “perfusion of signs” often cited in > what Sebeok calls Peirce’s “bedazzling sentence.” > > > > Closing note: a semiotic extension of the communications concept of > ‘signal-to-noise ratio’ would seem to play an important role here – e.g., > wouldn’t superstring theory suggest that all things living and non-living > alike exist or not based on the harmonious resonance, as it were, through > which all things coalesce into wholes of their semiotic parts, all within a > universally semiotic brane? Would those wholes dissipate, dissolve, > disintegrate, collapse, implode, or shatter as that resonance became > dissonant due to noise levels in their semiotic structure (recall those > cheesy “Is it live or is it Memorex?” commercials)? I realize I’m > stretching a metaphor here, of course, but intuitively at least, this SNR > idea seems to have an intriguing semiotic relevance. Perhaps it’s a case of > the “much unfinished research still to do” …? > > > > Terry > > > > *From:* Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Saturday, November 30, 2019 11:33 AM > *To:* Terry L Rankin <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Jerry Rhee <[email protected]>; Peirce List < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Is Semiotics nonhumanist? > > > > > > Terry, All, > > > > I dont know. My question would be: Does the science about sign utterance > and reception by organisms include the science about their capabilty of > uttering and receiving signs, and the reasons and prerequisites for having > and using this capability, or not? > > And: To just call organisms signs too, isnt that a quick shot? On the > other hand: To dualize it in the way of Luhmann and Maturana and Varela, by > saying that the communications are one system, the communicators another, > both being structurally coupled, is this a shortcut too, explaining the > problem (of the epistemic cut or whatever) away by introducing the term > "structural coupling"? > > If the answer to both questions is "yes" (which I just suspect, but am not > sure about), then I guess there is much unfinished research work still to > do. > > > > Best, > > Helmut > > > > 30. November 2019 um 02:21 Uhr > "Terry L Rankin" <[email protected]> > *wrote:* > > All, > > > > Am I missing something or isn’t this the primary focus of biosemiotics and > cybersemiotics? > > > > > Still in One Peace, > > Terry > > > > *From:* Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, November 29, 2019 5:22 PM > *To:* Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Peirce List <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is Semiotics nonhumanist? > > > > 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 .
