Re: FB | Dan Everett • On the Origin of Symbols and the Descent of Signs
Continuing a discussion on the primal character of symbols.
There are a few passages from Peirce going most quickly to the root of the matter and working to keep the main ideas in mind — before one gets too bogged down and bewildered by the full‑blown classification mania so common in the literature.
The following statement is key.
Thought is not necessarily connected with a brain. It appears in the work of bees, of crystals, and throughout the purely physical world; and one can no more deny that it is really there, than that the colors, the shapes, etc., of objects are really there.
C.S. Peirce, Collected Papers (CP 4.551)
I know that is a Golden Oldie, but as the years go by I find many people have taken away different messages from even the most familiar tunes, making it fruitful every now and again to accord old themes another turn.
- Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1995), “Interpretation as Action • The Risk of Inquiry”, Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15(1), 40–52.
Archive. Journal. Online (doc) (pdf).
- Semeiotic • Sign Relations • Triadic Relations • Relation Theory
- Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations
cc: Conceptual Graphs • Cybernetics • Ontolog • Structural Modeling • Systems Science
cc: FB | Semeiotics • Laws of Form
Pingback: Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Relation Theory • Discussion 9 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 2 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Relation Theory • Discussion 10 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 3 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 4 | Inquiry Into Inquiry