Gary F - see my replies: ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary Fuhrman To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee ; 'Peirce List' Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2014 4:17 PM Subject: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:6919] Re: Being Trivially A Sign
1) GF: Edwina, you're ignoring (or denying?) the distinction between a process or connection that may be taken as semiosic and one that actually functions semiotically (i.e. must be taken as a sign if it is to be recognized at all). EDWINA: 'may be taken as semiosic'...by WHOM? Why does the semiosis process require an external agent to recognize it as such? And 'functions semioticially'...to me, means...'exists morphologically'. And there's your phrase again...'taken as a sign'..and my question is: BY WHOM? 2) GF: This kind of distinction can be made at many levels. For instance, consider the distinction Peirce makes between "genuine" (or "complete") and "degenerate" (or "fragmentary") signs in "Kaina Stoicheia", where he says of the icon that "The relation to its object is a degenerate relation. It asserts nothing. If it conveys information, it is only in the sense in which the object that it is used to represent may be said to convey information" (EP2:306). When you say that "morphology = semiosis", your implicit logic runs like this: morphology is cognizable; cognition is semiosis; therefore morphology is semiosis. EDWINA: Agreed; The iconic relation is 'degenerate' in the sense that, yes, it ASSERTS nothing other than a connection between one 'morpheme' and another 'morpheme'. No, I don't say that 'morphology is cognizable; I say that it is existential. Morphology is the process of..forming instantiations. Such instantiations are always formed within a semiosic process. 3) GF: But as you indicated last week, you don't see this kind of distinction - and that's why you don't see the problem with that argument. Your pansemiosis collapses the distinction between semiosis and purely physical processes, and your definition of a sign as a "well-formed formula" collapses the distinction between formulation (a semiotic process) and that which is formulated. Which is rather like collapsing the distinction between representamen and object. Sure, any object can be said to represent itself, but that doesn't mean that it actually represents anything, as a sign surely must do if the term means anything. EDWINA: My 'pansemiosis' doesn't collapse the 'distinction between semiosis and purely physical processes'. I maintain that a physical process is, as morphological, carried out within a triadic semiosic process. Of course I don't collapse the distinction between the semiosic process and 'that which is formulated', i.e., the morpheme. That would be to deny the existential reality of the individual particular morpheme. I dont' do that. Semiosis as a process of forming individual instances, within the semiosic process, is constant - as Peirce himself said. And of course one can't collapse the distinction between the Representamen and the Object! That makes no sense. The Representamen does NOT represent the Object (which is what you seem to be saying). And no, the Sign (ie, the WHOLE triad not just the Representamen) does not 'represent' an external object. That's Saussurian. The SIGN (The WHOLE TRIAD not just the Representamen) is a morphological result of one organism's interaction with another....whether that result be a molecule, a cell, a thought, an image.. 3) GF:But I might as well stop, because if I'm right about your logic, you won't be able to make any sense of this distinction. EDWINA: Please don't move into insults. I'm a reasonably logical and intelligent person. Don't you think it would be more courteous if you just said that 'If I'm right about your perspective, you won't agree with my views'. gary f. From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] Sent: 21-Sep-14 2:01 PM To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; Peirce List Subject: [biosemiotics:6919] Re: Being Trivially A Sign Then why, if these connections: causal, morphological, formal, 'may be taken as a basis for signs'...then why is this considered a 'pre-semiotic world'? My view is that morphology = semiosis; therefore, any process that 'makes forms' is a semiosic process - and that goes on within the physico-chemical as well as biological realms. The major, vital, difference in the biological realm is that the process-of-evolution or adaptation, moved within the organisms, such that adaptation became 'self-organized'. This enabled an explosion not merely of diversity but also exponentially increase the rate-of-adaptation and change. The function? To enable the world to 'hold onto matter'. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Frederik Stjernfelt To: Peirce List ; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2014 1:21 PM Subject: [biosemiotics:6915] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Being Trivially A Sign Dear Jon, Tom, lists Well spoken Jon, I think this also covers my position. The pre-semiotic world is full of connections, causal, morphological, formal, which may be taken, in the semiotic processes of biology, as a basis for signs. Best F ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
