Dear John, list - We have discussed these issues at several occasions, as John writes. Now, our different positions are clearly expressed again - and, what is more, unchanged.
So rather than taking yet another turn in that eternal circle, John, would'nt you like to take a shot at my first chapter? Best F Den 05/09/2014 kl. 00.32 skrev "Deely, John N." <jnde...@stthom.edu<mailto:jnde...@stthom.edu>> : In CP 5.488 Peirce makes a crucial distinction: “all this universe is perfused with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of signs”. Only the latter idea – that the universe consists exclusively of signs – is properly termed “pansemiotics”. The former idea – that the universe is perfused with signs – implies Peirce’s thesis that signs are not restricted to the living world in the sense that semiosis is (not the whole of but) at work already in the preliving development of the universe. IF that is the case, we need to distinguish between biosemiosisand physiosemiosis under the general notion of “semiosis”. Given the history of the modifier “pan-“ in the history of philosophy, with its predominantly negative connotations or overtones, I think that it does a disservice to the development of semiotics to adopt (or try to adopt) positively the term “pansemiotics”. Actually, Frederik and I had an extensive discussion around this point in “Let us not lose sight of the forest for the trees ...”, Cybernetics & Human Knowing 13.3–4 (2006), 161–193, “Let us not lose sight of the forest for the trees ...”, a rsponse to Stjernfelt’s “Let us not get too far ahead of the story ...” in Cybernetics & Human Knowing 13.1 (2006), 86–103. The universe is not composed exclusively of signs: that is what the name “pansemiotics” preconsciously, as it were, conveys. The extent to which the universe (of things & objects) is “perfused” with signs is a different question. So, since “semiotics” is the knowledge acquired by studying the action of signs or “semiosis”, the extent of semiotic studies is as wide (or “extensive”) as is the process of semiosis. If semiosis is involved already in the evolution of the lifeless universe developing in the direction of life, then, just as biosemiotics studies semiosis as it is at work (or play!) in the world of living things, “biosemiosis”, so there will be a “physiosemiotic dimension” to semiotics (just as there is a “biosemiotic dimension”) as it is at work & play in the physical universe prior to and (later) surrounding life, “physiosemiosis”. If there is any physiosemiosis, that is as much a part of semiotics as biosemiosis is. It is a question of the range or extent of the action of signs in the physical realm of things whether living or not. Per se, the question of physiosemiosis, thus, is “the final frontier” (to borrow an expression from StarTrek) of semiotic investigation. Per se, this “final frontier” question has NOTHING to do with so-called, or mis-called, “pansemiotics”. Semiosis may be a process present throughout the physical universe, living or not; but semiosis is NOT the only process thus present (which is what the name “pansemiosis” or “pansemiotics” implies). The question of physiosemiosis is a question of to what extent is the action of signs simply co-terminous with the realm of living things. (to perhaps put it in Frederik’s framework: are there natural dicisigns beyond the frontiers of life?) The question properly phrased cannot be, as Frederik below suggests, properly “rephrased as pansemiotics versus biosemiotics”.
----------------------------- 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 .
