Re: SUO: Re: Lifecycle Integration Schema
Jon,
Semiology and epistemology are relevant only to a small portion of ontology
(e.g., as fields and correlated activities accounted by a social ontology on a
par with basketball playing and erotic theater). Other than that, this doesn't
go further than the dead end of metatheoretic flourish.
Pierre
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> LIS. Discussion Note 17
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> JA: I am just referring to the fact that general theories of signs from
> the times of Hippocrates and Aristotle forward have recognized both
> the analogies and the differences between "artificial signs", those
> that we make, and "natural signs", for example, smoke as a sign of
> fire, or laughter as a sign that our delirium is not too serious.
> This is a bit of backpropaganda that I'm strutting out here to
> reinforce my earlier remarks about the connections among all
> types of signs, whether they form in nature or in nurture:
>
> MW: OK. I guess we would see natural signs as consequences.
>
> Physical effects can be natural signs of their objects,
> if there is anybody around to interpret them as such,
> but consequences come too late to do us much good.
> We prefer to get signs in advance of the outcome.
> So even in the wild, sign relations, even the
> 2-adically degenerate ones, are by nature
> information-theoretic rather than causal,
> even if it always involves some causal
> or physical process to embody them.
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
>
--
Pierre Grenon, IFOMIS Uni Leipzig
http://people.ifomis.uni-leipzig.de/pierre.grenon/