From: Joseph Maurer (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Sun Feb 20 2005 - 21:45:27 GMT
On Wednesday 16 February 2005 3:25 PM Scott writes to Paul:
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.
Hi Scott, Paul and all,
Scott, your thinking on 'semiotic' is very interesting. I am not familiar
with Pierce so I use his words as I understand your thought. You use
"Peirce's Thirdness, a triadic relation of interpretant, sign, and referent"
as a springboard to your thought on 'semiotic'.
I apply interpretant, sign, and referent to a sentient aware of an
individual amoeba of the organic level. The referent is DQ organic level.
The sign is the word or SQ Amoeba. The interpretant is obscure. Hindu
'reincarnation' might be used as interpretant in that I have been here
before.
IMO Another way of looking at 'interpretant' is suggested by Gurdjieff.
Without describing evolution he divides matter into two kinds. He creates
his own words. He wrote in Russian and I expect some of his words are
untranslatable. One matter he calls Etherokrilno. Then there is another kind
of matter he calls Okidanokh. I have no reason to think he was describing
two universes. Omnipresent Okidanokh is unusual in that in the presence of a
higher level it separates into its three component forces. In the removal of
a higher level it reverts back to its original manifestation. The relative
combination of these three forces creates all the matter we know. This is
the basis of his description of the law of three. Everything is composed of
three forces. The interpretant then becomes a force which divides Okidanokh.
As I read your statement, I would assume that the created awareness of the
individual would be an interpretant.
Fantastic! (Or fantasy!)
Joe
> 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?
>
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 : Mon Feb 21 2005 - 00:18:58 GMT