From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Wed Feb 16 2005 - 18:56:09 GMT
Paul,
Scott replied:
Or what about the experience of a molecule 10 miles below the earth's
surface? That is, I figured it was realized that I am extending
"language"
way human speech and writing.
<snip>
And if you object that I shouldn't extend 'language' causes confusion, I
partially agree. That is why I prefer to use the phrase "everything is
semiotic".
Paul said:
I'm not sure what "everything is semiotic" means. Do you mean that
everything experienced is a sign? If so, does this not imply, by
definition, that we only experience that which necessarily stands for
something else? Is this something else, which is distinct from the
experience of its sign, something akin to a Kantian noumenon?
Scott:
By "semiotic" I am thnking of Peirce's Thirdness, a triadic relation of
interpretant, sign, and referent. Peirce argues that such a relation cannot
be built out of Seconds or Firsts (a Second is a collision or contact
between two objects, an action/reaction, a First is a quale, in the
philosophical sense, e.g., an experience of redness). Since it cannot be
reduced to Secondness and Firstness, either one must accept dualism or we
can conclude that Seconds and Firsts are not in actuality isolated, that is,
there is a Thirdness involved, but not recognized as such. SOM arose when
sense perception was seen as Firsts and Seconds only.
My claim that everything is semiotic does not depend solely on Peirce, by
the way, but his phenomenological classification does help to make clear
what is meant be "semiotic". As to your questions, a sign stands for
something else, but only if there is an interpretant. The sign moves the
interpretant to the object, which is another sign. So, no, the something
else is not a Kantian noumenon. What is akin to Kant's noumenon is the
universal. A sign event always involves a universal, which is what directs
the interpretant's motion. For human language this is obvious. For the rest
of existence, another name for "universal" is "static pattern of value". Two
molecules that bump into each other do so because they are following a
pattern, what we call a physical law, which also determines what happens as
a consequence of the bump. That bump manifests the pattern. If we say that
there is value involved (which I do), then there must be awareness of value,
that is, that bumping event is a particular manifestation of the static
pattern of value, and that manifestation -- the connection of the particular
to the universal, is awareness -- it is the meaning of the bump, and
"meaning" is another word for "value".
I am not saying that the molecule itself is an interpretant. Our picture of
molecules moving in the void, and the assumption that that is all that is
going on, is a SOM picture, and we don't have a "true" picture. Maybe nature
mystics do.
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 16 2005 - 22:49:46 GMT