Patrick,
I'm don't know what in my post you're replying to. I don't keep my posts,
so I can't be sure, but I don't recall mentioning an "expression continuum,"
"segments" or "meaning continuum." I may have; I sometimes think I only
think I know what I say or mean. My post (I think) had to do with the
confusion/conflation of independent processes. If that's what you're doing
in your last paragraph, quit it! (I don't have any of those smiley gadget
to put here.)
Cheers,
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Coppock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" <peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu>
Cc: "Bill Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 10:46 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign - help!
Hi Bill, you wrote:
I think it is not very useful to speak of signs as existing in the same
process as existential objects, but if we must, perhaps we can say, "Yes,
signs exist, but much faster than objects do."
Well yes I guess so. The sign function may be construed (rather
simplistically) as an event where some "segment" of "expression continuum"
is perceived as entering into, or being brought into, relation with some
"segment" of "meaning continuum".
If we are considering any kind of culturally contingent sign processes we
normally will have to try and take into account the varying amounts of
time and energy consumption and different forms of effort that are
associated with our semiotic "use" of the many different possible forms
and mediums of expression that may be brought into play during the course
of sign production and interpretation processes.
Thought is just one of these.
Thoughts flash by, words take longer to speak, and even longer to write
down - especially if we want others to understand what they are supposed
to mean.
The production of cinema, theatre and ballet performances, each will have
their own specific time and energy consumption requirements.
Diagrams, sketches and pictures written on paper have their own time and
energy consumption requirements, "digital" variants of the same objects
theirs.
But it seems to me that if we adopt a process perspective on semiosis,
what becomes central is that the "existence" of both signs and objects
becomes conceivable of as a transient form of "reality" (of varying
durability and speed), and it also seems feasible that the inherent
transience of signs and objects, and the various types of transitivity
that may be attributed to them in the course of the (intersubjective, or
other) negotiation of their potential meanings in different situations
and contexts must be closely interrelated aspects of this "reality" and/or
"existence".
Best regards
Patrick
--
Patrick J. Coppock
Researcher: Philosophy and Theory of Language
Department of Social, Cognitive and Quantitative Sciences
University of Modena and Reggio Emilia
Reggio Emilia
Italy
phone: + 39 0522.522404 : fax. + 39 0522.522512
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://coppock-violi.com/work/
faculty: http://www.cei.unimore.it
the voice: http://morattiddl.blogspot.com
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.8/380 - Release Date: 6/30/2006
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
