Dear John You write. "I see the possible becoming actual here, which is a change of category. Any change of category undermines identity (WHY??), so I wouldn't talk about a sign manifesting itself." It raises an interesting problem. My view is that the sign is real as a potential - but does not exist - until a token is produced or manifested. You promote another interpretation, which I do not understand. Please explain.
Søren Fra: John Collier [mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za] Sendt: 31. juli 2014 21:36 Til: Peirce-L Emne: Re: SV: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for I would agree with Søren, except that I find the grammar a bit odd. I suppose that their could be signs that are not manifested, but I would call these possible signs. The possibilities are real, and are most likely thirds. I don't think that a possible x is an x. So I find it a bit odd to talk about signs that "manifest[s] as tokens their Secondness must enter the world of physics". I see the possible becoming actual here, which is a change of category. Any change of category undermines identity, so I wouldn't talk about a sign manifesting itself. Any existing sign has a physical basis (and Peirce did talk about this, but I am sure their are those on the list with a better memory for actual words than I have -- I failed word memorization -- poetry, which is a bunch of words in some finicky form -- in grade school -- who can come up with suitable quotes. I would have to go and look for them, and I leave for a four day drive in eight hours so I don't have time). That is just part of what it is to exist. 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<mailto: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<mailto: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 <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 .
