semiotics

In reply to Heiner Benking, and his outline of the index - yes, Peirce
was a surveyor and the indexical action of 'pointing to' was a vital
relation.

The way I see the triadic sign, is that it is made up of relations.
The sign is a 'developing spatiotemporal entity' (whether as an atom,
a molecule, a cell, an organism, a word, a thought). This means that
it is an action-of-becoming-a-being'. So, it exists both within active
relations and a certain amount of closure and inertia. This inertia
can last for a nanosecond or a century. It is maintained by relations.
There are three relations: (1) the sign (think of the sign as
matter/energy becoming 'cooled' or 'solidified')..in relation to
another mass (an external object). This relation between one form of
matter/energy and another form of matter/energy....leads to that
clarification or distinctiveness of both forms of matter/energy. (2)
The sign as it is becoming more discrete...as it is interpreted. And
(3) the sign-in-itself.

I know this seems complicated - but you can visualize this triad like
this \ . /
Notice the 'dot' in between. That's the sign-in-itself (Representamen)
The \ line is the relation that the Sign has with an external Object
(iconic, indexical, symbolic)
The / line is the relation the Sign has as it is interpreted
(rhematic, dicent, argument). This simply outlines 'how' the first
relation (with the object) is interpreted.

If you consider all three interactions as relations - well, I think
that's a clear sense of the sign as a dynamic action. I view these
interactions as predicates.
The indexical predicate is very important. There are two types. The
'pointing to' predicate is what I refer to as
'Secondness-as-Firstness' (2-1). This means that you have
matter/energy in an anticipatory state, a mode of 'in -betweenness';
it's a decision-making action...not quite clear and still fuzzy.
Peirce referred to it as the zone of precission.

In reply to Soren - who is concerned that "all there is in the world
is signs and there are no objects to refer to". Well, I think that
this is true! All there is in the world is signs! But- a sign is also
an object. A sign acts as a Dynamic Object...and another Object,
interacts with that object..and because of this interaction, they are
both existent as 'signs'. I don't think that a sign exists only within
human descriptive operations. Signs are not just descriptions - A
description by a human is merely a 'Dynamic Interpretant'...and all it
can do is enable us to describe something else using a secondary
referential system (ie language). But interpretation is more complex..
A cell most certainly interprets the chemicals entering its
cell-space. The cell 'understands' these entering chemicals and thus,
the chemicals are 'signs'..as is the cell.

And exactly as you say, 'what we call objects in physics is a
production of both firstness, secondness and thirdness'. Right.

But- it isn't correct, I feel, to set up an 'either-or' scenario that
matter is either an object or a sign. A sign IS an object!..and an
object IS a sign!. The object can't exist except if it is in relation
with other matter/energy. Because of those relations, it is enabled to
be an object (a discrete mass)..and because of those relations, it is
also a sign, ie, a mass-in-relations. That merges classical and
quantum field physics!

Regards,

Edwina Taborsky
39 Jarvis St. #318
Toronto, Ontario M5E 1Z5
(416) 361.0898
Received on Tue May 21 19:17:21 2002