Edwina wrote (073114-1):
"Sung, it would help if you would actually read Peirce's (073114-1)
original works, rather than, as you do, relying on secondary
writings about Peirce and on cherry-quotes of his works."
You have been repeating this admonition whenever you want to criticize my
views on signs that differ from yours. There are several things that seem
wrong with this attitude which I once referred to as "childish", because:
(1) You assume that no one can understand what sign is unless he or she
studied Peirce as much a as you have. This cannot be true because
"There are scholars who made fundamental contributions to (073114-2)
the science of signs long before Peirce (1839-1914) was born
or independently of Peirce's work, e.g., Saussure (1857-1913)."
(2) You assume that secondary sources on Peircean semiotics is not as
reliable as Peirce's original writings. This may be true in some cases
but not always.
(3) The science of signs is "larger" than Peircean semiotics, because
"The science of signs is not yet complete and constantly (073114-3)
evolving with new advances in our knowledge in natural
and human sciences and communication engineering."
For these reasons I am inclined to believe that
"Anyone, not versed in Peircean semiotics, can discover truth
(073114-4)
about signs, although Peircean scholarship can often, but not
necessarily always, facilitate such discoveries."
So, Edwina, whenever you feel like repeating (073114-1), think about the
following admonition to you from me:
"Edwina, I probably have read more Peirce to be able to (073114-5)
discuss signs than you have read thermodynamics to be
able to discuss energy."
Sung, it would help if you would actually read Peirce's original works,
rather than, as you do, relying on secondary writings about Peirce and on
cherry-quotes of his works. You wrote:
"Written words are representamens and spoken (073114-7)
(and understood) words are signs."
No. Peircean semiosis is a process; the 'representamen' is not a thing
in
itself but an action of mediation within a triadic process.
It seems to me that you are conflating semiosis and its components that
make semiosis possible. In other words, you may be conflating nodes and
edges in networks. You cannot have edges without nodes ! Likewise, you
cannot have semiosis without material things acting as representamens. If
you do not agree, please tryh to come up with an example wherein semiosis
takes place without a material thing acting as a representamen (which, by
definition, TRIADICALLY mediates object and intepretant, the TRIADICITY
being the heart of Peircean semiotics and the category theory).
The sign is the full triadic process and not a thing or interpretation.
You seem to be repeating what I said in my response to Clark at 5:04 am
July 31, 2014. See Equation (073114-4) therein.
In both cases if
you interact with the word, in both its written and spoken form, the
'word' is an object in the Peircean sense. The difference between the
two has
nothing to do with semiosis or the physics of energy dissipation.
Please read my discussion on this issue with Ben on the PEIRCE-L list
dated July 30, 2014 9:08 pm. I think Ben has a much more realistic
understanding of the thermodyanamic and semiotic issues involved here.
In a semiotic sense, there is no difference between the two because both
are
objects; there is only a material difference in their composition -
similar to frozen and liquid water.
See above.
One can go further and consider the word, in both its written and spoken
form 'in itself' as a semiotic sign (as the full triad) because each one
spatially and temporally exists. In its unread form on the paper, the
word
remains a sign (in the triadic form) because it exists as a material
entity on another material entity; when read, it functions as a dynamic
object.
The spoken word functions as a dynamic object.
See above.
Edwina
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
Sung, it would help if you would actually read Peirce's original works,
rather than, as you do, relying on secondary writings about Peirce and on
cherry-quotes of his works. You wrote:
"Written words are representamens and spoken (073114-7)
(and understood) words are signs."
No. Peircean semiosis is a process; the 'representamen' is not a thing
in
itself but an action of mediation within a triadic process. The sign is
the
full triadic process and not a thing or interpretation. In both cases if
you interact with the word, in both its written and spoken form, the
'word'
is an object in the Peircean sense. The difference between the two has
nothing to do with semiosis or the physics of energy dissipation. In a
semiotic sense, there is no difference between the two because both are
objects; there is only a material difference in their composition -
similar
to frozen and liquid water.
One can go further and consider the word, in both its written and spoken
form 'in itself' as a semiotic sign (as the full triad) because each one
spatially and temporally exists. In its unread form on the paper, the
word
remains a sign (in the triadic form) because it exists as a material
entity
on another material entity; when read, it functions as a dynamic object.
The
spoken word functions as a dynamic object.
Edwina
