Frederik - a sign is a triadic 'set' of three relations - that between the Representamen and the Object; the Representamen in itself; and that between the Representamen and the Interpretant. That's 'triadicity' in my view. These three relations can be in any of the three categorical modes.
Thirdness is a specific categorical mode of organization, and yes, all regularity falls within this particular mode. 'Thirdness', as a category, is not a sign - for the sign is a triadic 'set', eg, a Dicent Symbolic Legisign. ...where two of the relations are in a mode of Thirdness and one is in a mode of Secondness. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Frederik Stjernfelt To: [email protected] ; Peirce List Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2014 4:50 PM Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6785] Re: Physics & Semiosis: the Dear Edwina, Stan, lists - But there is triadicity all over the place - all regularity, vague or strong, in the universe falls under Peirce's category of Thirdness. But not all thirdnesses are signs - even if they form a condition of possibility for signs to emerge … Best F John, I don't think that these opposing views - whether semiosic actions take place within the physico-chemical realm or only begin in the biological realm - can be definitively resolved. I, for one, like Stan, firmly believe that semiosis operates within the physico-chemical realm; that is, that even an atom emerges within a triadic relation - even if such atom has nil capacity for adaptation within that semiosis - as in the biological realm. As for 'all of science is conducted in signs'...I think this is vague. Science is a human activity. Or, is this statement meant to refer to matter...i.e., all that is material is conducted in signs'. I agree with Frederik that studying semiosic functions within the physico-chemical realm probably does little to provide new knowledge about that realm, but, I agree with Stan that it could examine the emergence of life from that realm. And I'm afraid that my intellectual dimness means that I can't see much difference between your pansemiosis and physiosemiosis...in that both acknowledge that semiosis operates within the physico-chemical realm. After all, physiosemiosis, in order to explore 'where and how', first has to acknowledge that semiosis actually exists in that realm. Edwina ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
