> On Jul 30, 2014, at 7:08 PM, Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote: > > You and Clark, perhaps representing the views of most Peirceans scholars, > seem to think that the physics of words is not that significant in discussing > semiotics, whereas > I think it is.
I think I’m more of a physicist than a Peircean scholar. <grin> But thanks for the kind words. My worry is more just getting the physics and ontology correct. From a Peircean standpoint nearly anything can be used as the mark for a sign including either processes or stabilities. So the semiotics and the physics should be kept straight. I do think there are some materialist ontologies underlying all this which may be incompatible with Peirce’s thought. But then of course Peirce’s particular ontology of semiotics is one of his more controversial positions. There are many fine with adopting Peirce’s theory of signs who grow uneasy with his metaphysics. I don’t want to comment until I have a chance to read John’s link. And unfortunately I’m just swamped at work so I don’t know when that will be. That said, my sense is that you are after semiosis as a process while thermodynamically at the appropriate scale and simplification a system in equilibrium isn’t undergoing measurable change and thus can’t be conceived of as a changing process. If that’s all you’re saying in one sense I can’t disagree but I’d merely distinguish between one material process of semiotics and semiotics in general. That’s why I asked about ontology. But again let me read John’s link before saying more.
----------------------------- 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 .
