Clark wrote: " . . . my sense is that you are after semiosis (073114-1) as a process while thermodynamically at the appropriate scale and simplification a system in equilibrium isnt undergoing measurable change and thus cant be conceived of as a changing process. If thats all youre saying in one sense I cant disagree but Id merely distinguish between one material process of semiotics and semiotics in general."
Yes. That is what I am saying, and I too distinguish between material process of semiotics and semiotics in general. My working hypothesis is that "Physics of words/signs is necessary but (073114-2) not sufficient for their semiosis." or that "No equilibrium structures can carry out semiosis (073114-3) unless and until transformed into dissipative structures by being activated by input of free energy. For example, words on a piece of paper must be lit before they can convey information." 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 > >> 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 Im 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 Peirces thought. But then of course Peirces particular ontology of > semiotics is one of his more controversial positions. There are many fine > with adopting Peirces theory of signs who grow uneasy with his > metaphysics. > > I dont want to comment until I have a chance to read Johns link. And > unfortunately Im just swamped at work so I dont 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 isnt undergoing measurable change and thus cant be conceived > of as a changing process. If thats all youre saying in one sense I cant > disagree but Id merely distinguish between one material process of > semiotics and semiotics in general. Thats why I asked about ontology. But > again let me read Johns 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 .
