Replying to Joseph --
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 7:18 PM, joe.bren...@bluewin.ch <
joe.bren...@bluewin.ch> wrote:
Dear John, Pedro, Jerry and All,
-snip-
In my view, this simply displaces the problem further, since the Peircean
categories themselves are derivative, epistemological constructions which
'mirror', literally and figuratively, the underlying dynamic structure of
the universe as Peirce saw it. The processes referred to by Q, E and EH are
indeed interpreter-dependent objective processes, but they admit that they
cannot be dissociated from the notion of a situated agent.
Here, we have gone outside Peirce, since the discussion of the "agent" and
his/her interactions requires a physical dialectics and logic that is absent
in Peirce.
I have suggested that triadic abiotic semiosis (Deely's 'physiosemiosis')
will synthesize an agent on the spot. That is, when the triadic situation
appears willy-nilly in nature, a (usually fleeting!) agent emerges there and
then.
-snip
Then, replying to Loet
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 3:04 AM, Loet Leydesdorff <l...@leydesdorff.net>
wrote:
To paraphrase Antonio Salieri's famous *"Prima la musica, dopo le parole*",
I say "first reality, then the signs".
Dear Joseph: “allegro, ma non troppo”!
In the 18th century, “nature” is still considered as God’s creation and
therefore has priority to our (human) wordings and signings. Thus, one was
interested in “natural philosophy” and “natural law” as manifestations.
However, this has eroded. Nowadays, the possibility of theory-free
observations – e.g., Carnap – is much more doubtful. Most of us will have
given up on this “realistic” position. One would also wonder whether animals
without language, would have the possibility to compose and perform music
(without human orchestration).
It seems important to me to distinguish between the order in which things
are historically generated (although we have no access to this process than
by reconstructing this order) and the evolutionary order of control. The
latter system emerges from the former: order is constructed bottom-up, but
control is increasingly top-down. The control arrow feeds back on the
historical arrow and from this perspective the signs come first.
This can be neatly shown succinctly using a subsumptive hierarchy:
{prior conditions -> {newer realms -> {the present}}} or
{physicochemical world -> {biological world -> {sociopolitical world}}}
modeling: {subsumption --> <-- { integration}}
Integration = locally regulating, controlling, interpreting, harnessing,
etc.
Which then implies lots of things about these relationships.
STAN
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
