Dear Gary F, I hope you don't mind if I jump in.
As you know, Prigogine (1917-2003) divided all structures in the Universe into two classes equilibrium structures (ES) and dissipative structures (DS) [1, 2]. ESs do not but DSs do need to dissipate free energy for them to exist. I think the ES-DS theory of Prigogine can be applied to linguistics and semiotics generally. Thus, we can recognize two classes of words --- (i) written words belonging to ES, and (ii) spoken words belonging to DS. Written words cannot perform any work since they do not have any energy. They are like a hammer, an ES, which cannot move matter until an agent inputs some energy into it by, say, lifting and ramming it down on the head of a nail. But spoken words, being sound waves (which are DSs), can perform work because they possess energy and hence can move matter, for example, causing the ear drum to vibrate. So, I would say that "Words, as written, cannot, but words as spoken, (6231-1) can, move matter. or more generally Signs as equilibrium structures cannot but (6231-2) signs as dissipative structures can move matter. A corollary of (6231-2) would be that "Since semiosis cannot occur without moving matter, (6321-3) the signs mediating semiosis must be dissipative structures." I postulated that all dissipative structures (or dissipatons, more briefly [3]) require both information (gn-) and energy (-ergy), i.e., gnergy, for them to exist. Discrete units of gnergy are referred to as gnergons. Hence, dissipatons are gnergons are more or less synonymous, the former emphasizing thermodynamics and the latter both thermodynamics and informatics. Using these neologisms, Statement (6321-3) can be re-expressed as Signs mediating semiosis are dissipatons (or gnergons). (6321-4) Or Peircean signs are gnergons." [4] (6321-5) The interesting quotes of Peirce you cite below seem to indicate that "Peirce was aware of the essential role (6321-6) of energy dissipation in semiosis." Hence, Peircean semiotics is consistent with the gnergon theory (6321-7) of self-organization, including semiosis. With all the best. Sung ___________________________________________________ Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net References: [1] Kondepudi, D. (2008). Introduction to Thermodynamics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Chichester. [2] Kondepudi, D. and Prigogine, I. (1998). Modern Thermodynamics: >From Heat Engine to Dissipative Structures, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Chichester. [3] Ji, S. (2012). Principle of Self-Organization and Dissipative Structures. In: Molecular Theory of the Living Cell: Concepts, Molecular Mechanisms, and Biomedical Applications. Springer, New York. Pp. 69-80. PDF available at http://www.conformon.net under Publications > Book Chapters. [4] Ji, S. (2012). Peircean Signs as Gnergons. In: Molecular Theory of the Living Cell: Concepts, Molecular Mechanisms, and Biomedical Applications. Springer, New York. Pp. 176-180. PDF available at http://www.conformon.net under Publications > Book Chapters. > Edwina, you say that Words don't move matter. â but Iâd say that human > actions move matter quite a lot, and words (or rather signs) can do a lot > of teleodynamic work in determining the form of human actions, if the > signs have what Peirce called âlogical energyâ: âit is in action > that logical energy returns to the uncontrolled and uncriticizable parts > of the mindâ (EP2:241). This leads him to the version of the pragmatic > maxim with which he ended his Harvard Lectures of 1903: > > âThe elements of every concept enter into logical thought at the gate of > perception and make their exit at the gate of purposive action; and > whatever cannot show its passports at both those two gates is to be > arrested as unauthorized by reason.â > > If this describes a recursive process of the kind Stan and Wendy and I > have in mind, it seems that the âuncontrolled and uncriticizable parts > of the mindâ are causally connected to the physical world contiguous to > both âgatesâ, and this causal connection actually closes the loop so > that logical energy can âreturnâ to the physical world it emerged from > (and thus inform it). Does that make sense to you? > > > > gary f. > > > > > > From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] > Sent: 25-Jul-14 3:45 PM > To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee > Subject: [biosemiotics:6229] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for > > > > Stan - the discourses or narratives that we use to 'talk about' reality > don't affect that reality. Words don't move matter. > > > > The FACT that a species adapts to its environment is found in all > cultures; this is not 'very general'. The narrative of causality may be > different (gods, spirits, random mutations, informational feedback) but > that's not relevant. That's because, again, words don't move matter. The > scientific material causes are not 'constructs' of discourse but exist 'in > matter' and thus are completely outside of discourse; that is, it can be > shown that a material mutation of a gene has clear results in the > offspring - and words and discourse are irrelevant. > > > > So, if our scientific method can show that x affects y, and x is NOT a > discourse but a material existentiality...then, the relation is true. > Words are not relevant to this relationship. > > > > Again, you are misunderstanding 'realism'. Realism refers to an acceptance > that general laws of organization of matter exist - even if they only > 'exist' when they organize a particular individual unit; i.e., these > general laws can't exist on their own. (I'm not a Platonist). > > > > These laws exist quite outside of the discourses and narratives that we > have about the natural world. If you consider that a god provides you with > food rather than that a seed will grow into a wheat plant, then, you will > never move into a societal mode where you consider that IF you don't eat > all the seeds, but retain half and sow them in the ground next year - > you'll have food. But other cultures DID realize this - and didn't rely on > the gods or the West to move into agriculturalism. > > > Edwina > >
----------------------------- 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 .
