So I think Søren is right in saying that sign tokens are subject to thermodynamics, and in particular it takes work for them to appear. They also tend to dissipate, and to overcome that requires work as we.. And so does recognizing them for what they are.
As Edwina has said over and over, a full fledged sign is a process connecting object and interpretation through a representamen (in a very specific way), all of which on Peirce's view have dynamic counterparts to their abstract consideration. These are not separate things, and they must be considered so they are not opposed to each other (except perhaps in the overactive imagination).
John
At 08:19 PM 2014-07-31, Søren Brier wrote:
Dear Clark and list
My I add a few thoughts? I agree that sign are reals, but when they manifests as tokens their Secondness must enter the world of physics and thermodynamics must apply. It is work to make signs emerge in non-verbal communication or as language from ones feeling and thoughts. Even to produces thoughts and feeling demands work. That would be a biosemiotic view (but one that we have not discussed much). But I think you are correct in saying that Peirce did not do any work on this aspect of sign production.
Best
Søren
Fra: Clark Goble [ mailto:cl...@lextek.com]
Sendt: 31. juli 2014 20:11
Til: Sungchul Ji; Peirce-L
Emne: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for
- On Jul 31, 2014, at 2:37 AM, Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote:
- 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."
Right, but again that is an ontological assumption of the underlying substrate for semiotic process. Those who adopt a more idealist rather than materialist ontology will simply not agree with that. And indeed Peirce, in both his early and mature phases, would disagree with that conception. (Again, noting that one can simply mine Peircean semiotics without taking all his thought)
Thus my point about knowledge of a system and whether that system can be conceived of semiotically.
Professor John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za
Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South Africa
T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031
Http://web.ncf.ca/collier
----------------------------- 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 .
