Dear Soren,
What I try to say is that the Piercean triadic pragmatic semiotics includes
‘meaning’ as generated by the Interpreter but does not tell much about the
nature of that meaning. And this lack makes difficult to adress questions like:
what is the reason of being of a meaning?, what can
Participants are reminded about the limit of two messages per
week--those not abiding are sanctioned offline.
Best--Pedro
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
Dear Christoph
I am not sure what you mean. In my understanding the important dynamics in
Peirce's pragmaticist semiotics is that symbols grow and create habits in a web
of signs in nature as well as in culture viewing the central dynamic process in
the cosmos as well as man to be of symbolic
Dear Søren
I have been interested in Peirce for a long time, but while I've found it
an interesting explanatory framework, I've tended to not find it as
practically useful as other (cybernetic) ways of thinking. I'm puzzled by
this: I think the problem might have something to do with the
Dear Soren,
You are right to recall that a transdisciplinary theory of cognition and
communication has to include meaning. But I’m not sure that the Peircean
approach is enough for that.
The triad (Object, Sign, Interpretant) positions the Interpretant as being the
meaning of the Sign created
