Re: Frederik Stjernfelt
At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13888
Re: "it may be expressed as the claim that all true triadic relations are signs
vs. the claim that signs only comprise a subset of triadic relations."
Frederik & All,
People may speculate until the proverbial cows come home, but questions like these cannot be
addressed, much less answered, without bringing consequential definitions of relations to bear.
I have made several efforts at basic expositions along these lines and will send links to them by
separate posts.
Regards,
Jon
Frederik Stjernfelt wrote:
> Dear Gary, Edwina, list
>
> This is an recurrent discussion in P scholarship. It may be rephrased as
pansemiotics versus
> biosemiotics, or it may be expressed as the claim that all true triadic
relations are signs vs.
> the claim that signs only comprise a subset of triadic relations. Both
tendencies are in Peirce
> so the isssue can not be resolved by Peirce scholarship. Personally, I tend
to side with the
> latter of the two schools, based on the observation that the science of
physics does not need
> semiotics in the description of its subject matter (only in its theory of
science) while biology,
> on all levels, involves spontaneous semiotic concepts, from biochemistry to
ecology and ethology
> you'll find "genetic code", "Information", "signals", "cues" etc. which
presumably form part of
> the subject matter of biology. For that reason, I think pre-biological nature
could be seen as a
> sort of semiotic zero-case. Adding semiotic concepts to your description of
physical events can
> be done, but it does not really add to our understanding of them - while in
our understanding of
> biological events, semiotic concepts are always-already there. I do not
discuss this deeply in
> "Natural Propositons" but of course it forms the prerequisite to my
discussing biological sign
> processes but not purely physical events conceived as semiotics. But I think
deciding pro or con
> pansemiotics is no prerequisite for following the book's argument.
>
> Best F
--
academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
-----------------------------
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 .
