Helmut - the problem with nominalism is that it can only operate in a narrow
range, the realm of words or symbols. As such, it is a 'dictionary' and
mechanical approach to interpretation.
Essentially, nominalism denies universals or common attributes have reality
in themselves; it considers them to be mere terms created by man for these
'commonalities'.
This sets up a framework exemplified by Saussurian semiology which is
essentially a mechanical dyadic coding system. This word/image/object
'stands for' that meaning. Very like a dictionary or a code...a=b.
Such an approach, static and reductionist, can only be used within symbolic
signs, where the word/image/object is a 'symbol' for 'that meaning'. Note
that of the ten Peircean classes of signs, only three are symbolic.
Obviously this means that nominalism as an approach to information dynamics
leaves out a lot! The three Peircean categories, equally become reduced to
symbols where, eg, 1stness 'stands for'...quality - an analysis that leaves
out the fundamental openness and freedom of this category. This approach is
beloved of literary/artistic analysis where practitioners will inform us of
the 'hidden meanings ' of such and such author/artist and the images/texts
they produce.
This dyadic codal approach totally misses the nature of Peircean semiotics,
which is not a mechanical reductionist dyadic codification but is dynamic.
How and why? First, because of the triadic process, where the vital action
of mediation, with its evolving 'common habits or laws, transforms
information rather than mechanically 'restates it in different words'.
Second, because of course, Peircean semiosis is far broader than the
symbolic interaction and importantly, operates within the indexical
interaction. Third, because of the modal categories, which are actual
methods of 'forming data or objects. Something that is in a mode of
Firstness operates in the world very differently from one in a mode of
Secondness or Thirdness.
The nominalist Saussurian method with its codal 'this means that' won't
allow a biosemiosis or physico-chemical semiotics because of its focus on
single words/codification and its lack of that mediation with its evolving
rules process. I personally consider Peircean semiosis a powerful analytic
method in these areas.
Edwina
Sent from my iPad
-----------------------------
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 .
