Jon - I think we are both talking past each other. You say that I didn't get
your point. I certainly feel that you didn't get my point! hmm. Does that
mean that neither of us has any information to contribute?
Best,
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Awbrey" <[email protected]>
To: "Peirce List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2014 11:25 PM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Semiotic Theory Of Information -- Discussion
STOI. Semiotic Theory Of Information
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14551
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14559
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14614
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14616
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14626
STOI-DIS. Semiotic Theory Of Information -- Discussion
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14628
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14639
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14640
Edwina,
I'm not sure where you got all this stuff about "the other". You appear
to be
reading some "other" meaning into what I wrote than what is found in my
words.
The concept being invoked here is that of an interpreter. Some
interpreters are
others and some interpreters are selves and some interpreters are
tantamount to
whole indefinite communities of interpretation. Peirce's sign relations
are
general enough to handle all those cases and the interactions among them.
I linked in another post to one of my favorite passages from Peirce — one
where
he explains the relationship between interpreters and interpretants.
Interpreters and Interpretants
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14674
When we strip away from the interpreter every accidental feature that it
might
otherwise have, what remains is precisely the sign relation, the
collection of
triples of the form (object, sign, interpretant) that defines that
interpreter
in so far as it concerns the theory of semiotics.
That is the context in which Peirce's concept of information has its
meaning.
Regards,
Jon
Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> Jon - I think there's a problem in your assertion of a reliance on 'the
> other' for information to exist. First - I don't rely on repeating what
> so-and-so said about Peirce and information.. And that, of course, must
> include your own statements. [And if you are referring to my reference
> to Castells, he doesn't reference Peirce.]
>
> But, you yourself wrote that
>
> "Information is the property of a message or sign by virtue of which it
> can
> reduce the uncertainty of an interpreter about the state of an object."
>
> This, again, relies on 'the other' and what 'the other' perceives,
> suggesting that if there is no 'uncertain other' - then, information
> doesn't exist. This suggests that an organism contains no information
> in
> itself, which deprives the categorical mode of Thirdness in that
> organism of any meaning. And deprives the categorical mode of Secondness
> in that same organism of any meaning.
>
> I certainly support the view that ALL Signs are networked and in
> interaction with other Signs. There is no such thing as an isolate Sign.
> My problem is your claim that information only exists to reduce the
> uncertainty of an Other, whereas, I would consider that it exists as an
> integral component of the morphological existence of the Sign - and it
> will be evident in any of its interactions with other Signs...whether
> they be befuddled, uncertain or whatever.
>
> Edwina
--
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
[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 .
