Edwina, List: I requested that very book from the library yesterday, because I am hoping that it will shed some light on this. Of course, a law of nature is not *itself *a physical or otherwise existent entity, hence a (general) Legisign. I am mainly looking for feedback on the identity of the Dynamic Object, Symbol vs. Index, and Dicent vs. Rheme. I am also wondering if an instantiation of a law of nature is more properly classified as a replica (Sinsign) or a Dynamic Interpretant.
Thanks, Jon On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > I think that Stjernfelt's book Natural Propositions ... on DiciSigns > examines the semiosic process in these realms. There are three types of > Dicisigns. The Dicent Sinsign [ dicent indexical sinsign]. The Dicent > indexical Legisign. The Dicent Symbolic Legisign. > > That is - the informational exchange is by direct physical connections. > But a symbol is not merely convention; it is also a general; that is, could > the interaction between the Sign triad and Dynamic Object be not merely a > descriptive existential exchange which is indexical-iconic, but could it be > a reference to the general laws held within the Dynamic Object such that a > 'shared reality' could be developed. > > I'd agree that the Dynamic Interpretant would be a given actual > instantiation. ..and could be dicent or even more openly vague and rhematic. > > I think that the Rhematic Indexical Legisign also plays a role in this > system - It's not part of the three Dicent examples given by Stjernfelt > -but is, I feel, a key class of semiosis in the Peircean analysis. > > Edwina > > - > -- > This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's > largest alternative telecommunications provider. > > http://www.primus.ca > > On Thu 06/04/17 3:36 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: > > List: > > With the discussions going on in a couple of threads about semeiosis in > the physico-chemical and biological realms, a question occurred to me. > What class of Sign is a law of nature? I am not referring to how we > describe a law of nature in human language, an equation, or other > representation of it; I am talking about the law of nature itself, the > real general that governs actual occurrences. > > As a law, it presumably has to be a Legisign. What is its Dynamic > Object--the inexhaustible continuum of its potential instantiations, > perhaps? How should we characterize its S-O relation? It is not > conventional (Symbol), so is it an existential connection (Index)? What is > its Dynamic Interpretant--any given actual instantiation, perhaps? How > should we characterize its S-I relation--Dicent, like a proposition, or > Rheme, like a term? > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > >
----------------------------- 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 .
