Re: Vedr.: semiotics

In reply to Soren, -- No, the triadic sign doesn't collapse. What I
think you are doing, and I may be wrong, is setting up reality into
singularities. You are considering that a 'lump' of matter/energy is
either an object or a sign. But this singular reality would nullify
the triadic nature of - not merely the object - but also the sign!
An object exists as a 'lump' of cohesive matter/energy (whether as an
atom, a collection of atoms, a cell, a word, and et cetera).. only
because it is in relations with other matter/energy. What are the
relations that an object must have, in order to have some
spatiotemporal reality? It must be differentiated - that's certain.
How does differentiation operate? By interactions with 'Other
matter/energy'. As soon as matter/energy gets involved in interactions
(which is always, always, always)...then, we can call it a Sign. The
interactions are triadic. Always.

So- a lump of matter/energy exists as both an object and a sign. Not
either-or. But 'both-and'.
How does it operate as an object? By being a 'lump' of matter/energy
that is EXTERNAL to another 'lump'. Its externality identifies its
object-nature. BUT- it can't even exist as such, unless its mass is in
relationships with other mass. Otherwise - it wouldn't even exist.
That differentiation, which involves both spatial and temporal
measurements...is what defines an object. But- the very act that
differentiates one mass from another mass - also acts to make that
very same mass, not only an 'object' (an external lump of matter) but
also a sign (a lump of matter in relation to another lump of matter).

So- the rock is an object. It is an external cohesive 'lump' of
matter/energy, differentiated from the sand and water. It is also a
sign, for that same rock interacts with other mass/energy and sets up
interpretive relations both within the rock and within the other mass.
The rock interprets the sun, by absorging some of its radiant energy.
So- the rock is a sign process, interpreting the radiant energy of the
sun by storing some of that energy. You could say that the rock is a
'sign-of' the radiant energy of the sun. The rock interprets the water
beating against it, losing some of its cohesion and merging with the
water. The rock is a 'sign-of' its interactions with the water. The
water is an object and a sign. As a sign, in its relations with the
rock, it absorbs some of that rock-nature within its own identity, and
'fills' with sand.

Does that make it any clearer? The sign's triadic relations (relation
with an external object; relations within the act of interpreting that
external object; and nature of the sign-in-itself)...are not separate
realities. You can't have a Dynamic Object existing without it also
being in relations with other dynamic objects. And by being in
relations, these two Dynamic Objects are also Signs.

Dear Edwina

If all objects are signs and all signs are objects then I cannot see
how the difference between representamen and object can be upheld.
Then the triadic sign collapses. There must be a dynamical object
"out there" (that is not a sign) that the sign through semiosis and
the evolution in the semiotic web moves towards or else the truth
concept will disappear. This is my concern.

I would like to refer you all to Winfried N�th's article on "Semiotic
Machines" in Cybernetics & Human Knowing v. 9 no. 1 where he very
carefully deals with Peirce's understanding of the protosemiotic.

S�ren Brier, +45 3528 2689

http://www.flec.kvl.dk/personalprofile.asp?id=sbr&p=engelsk

Ed. of Cybernetics & Human Knowing

http://www.imprint-academic.com/C&HK

>>> taborsky@primus.ca 21-05-02 19:16 >>>
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 20:40:53 2002