On Jul 28, 2014, at 3:28 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > Effectively to deny this gap is to claim the legendary transcendental sign > which is key to certain philosophies - especially many Platonic ones. I think > a major theme of semiotics in the second half of the 20th century, regardless > of jargon, is the denial of such a transcendental sign. Effectively this is > the denial, in your terminology, of a pure equilibrium structure.
After saying all that about argument and not orthodoxy I probably should clarify the above somewhat. The main point is that many different ways of thinking of semiotics tends to share this point. There are thus numerous arguments against the idea of a transcendental sign one can find in the literature. I’m partial to Derrida’s line of argument but I’d be the first to acknowledge he’s come to have such a bad reputation in the US as to make him a poor source to cite. Plus it requires some careful reading of Husserl and/or Saussure since Derrida tends to make immanent critiques. A better argument might simply be your appeal by way of analogy to thermodynamics. The stability requires first a closed system and second no creation of energy within the system by any type of internal decay over time (say due to radioactive emission). Since those states don’t hold in the real world, there seems compelling reason to believe the transcendent sign doesn’t exist. Or, if it does exist, the burden of proof is on those claiming something that seems to go against prima facie reasoning.
----------------------------- 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 .
