The word "sign" (S) can appear on both sides of the equation that defines its meaning, i.e., it is recursive:
"S = the irreducible triad of S, O, and I" (073114-4) where O is object and I is interpretant. To avoid possible confusions due to this recursivity of the word "sign", I often prefer replacing the S on the right hand side of the equation with R, representamen, as Peirce often did (for the same reason, I think). Also I think we can say that "Sign is not a sign until and unless it 'semioses'." (073114-5) where 'semiose' is the verb indicating a process requiring the dissipation (i.e., the conversion of free energy to heat) of a finite amount of energy. This leads me to conclude that "Sign can but representamen cannot semiose." (073114-6) and that "Written words are representamens and spoken (073114-7) (and understood) words are signs." 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 > One brief last point. I think Peirces distinctions between token, type, > and tone are rather helpful here and should be kept in mind. Of course the > token/type distinction in particular can be blurry but Im not sure thats > relevant to the discussion at hand. > > My sense is that the metaphysics/epistemology distinction is also at play. > Id just note that we can talk about a sign process without requiring that > anyone be able to know that sign as a sign. That is some unseen entity > could signify a particular interpretant without any person being able to > know it. Thats why I think semiotics and physics should be kept clearly > separated. One might say that because of the structure of some physical > phenomena it cant communicate information due to the physics but that > doesnt mean there arent other semiotic analysis at work. > > To give an example of this consider the group velocity and the phase > velocity of a wave. One can go faster than the speed of light while the > other cant. And its trivial to show that according to relativity one > cant transmit useful information faster than the speed of light. However > we must be careful not to limit semiotical structures just to this > information that can be communicated only at the speed of light or slower. > Put an other way, we have to be careful not to equivocate over the term > information" while moving back and forth between physics and semiotics. > Again as I mentioned earlier an excellent example of this are Feynman > Diagrams. These diagrams clearly are a type of semiotic analysis of > interactions even if the nature of the interactions become problematic > when treated materially. > > Hopefully that clarifies things rather than confuses them.
----------------------------- 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 .
