This article builds on C. S. Peirce’s suggestive blueprint for an inclusive outlook that grants reality to his three categories. Moving away from the usual focus on (contentious) cosmological forces, I use a modal principle to partition various ontological layers: regular sign-action (like coded language) subsumes actual sign-action (like here-and-now events) which in turn subsumes possible sign-action (like qualities related to whatever would be similar to them). Once we realize that the triadic sign’s components are each answerable to this asymmetric (...) subsumption, we obtain the means to track at which level of complexity semiosis finds itself, in a given case. Since the bulk of such a “trinitarian” metaphysics would be devoted to countenancing uninterpreted phenomena, I argue that current misgivings about sign-based ontologies are largely misplaced. (shrink)

The emerging epistemic community of ecosemioticians and the multidisciplinary field of inquiry known as ecosemiotics offer a radical and relevant approach to so-called global environmental crisis. There are no environmental fixes within the dominant code, since that code overdetermines the future, thereby perpetuating ecologically untenable cultural forms. The possibility of a sustainability transition (the attempt to overcome destitution and avoid ecocatastrophe) becomes real when mediated by and through ecosemiotics. In short, reflexive awareness of humankind's linguisticality is a necessary condition for (...) transforming ecologically maladaptive cultural forms. As a multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary research program integrating the human and natural sciences, ecosemiotic inquiry closes the gap between biophysical ecology and human ecology. A provisional outline of a pragmatic theory of ecoserniotics attempts to describe the processes by which adaptive cultural changes might be facilitated and points toward substantive content areas that constitute sites for further research. Ecosemiotic inquiry frames cultural codes as these shape and reproduce the ongoing stream of individual and societal choices that shape distinctively human existence in a larger context of biophysical realities that drive natural selection. However, while ecosemiotics is a necessary condition for the sustainability transition, it is not a sufficient condition. (shrink)

Resumo: Depois de 1900, Peirce esteve empenhado no desenvolvimento de sua teoria dos signos, particularmente na teoria dos interpretantes, e, ainda mais especificamente, na teoria dos interpretantes lógicos, pois nestes estaria a pedra de toque para a unificação do pragmatismo com a teoria dos signos. Em 1907, ele declarou que o problema do significado de um conceito intelectual só poderia ser resolvido com o estudo dos interpretantes, ou efeitos propriamente significados dos signos. Foi nesse contexto que Peirce elaborou sua famosa (...) subdivisão dos interpretantes em emocional, energético e lógico. Em 1968, Peirce havia afirmado que o interpretante de um pensamento é outro pensamento e que esse processo é teoricamente infinito. Muitos autores impressionados com essa afirmação, sem se darem ao trabalho de seguir o desenvolvimento desse conceito ao longo da obra de Peirce, concluíram pela tão citada semiose infinita. Umberto Eco, por exemplo, foi um dos autores a tirar partido dessa noção de infinitude. O objetivo deste trabalho é discutir a transformação por que esse conceito de interpretante passou na obra peirceana, especialmente depois de 1907, quando Peirce introduziu sua noção de interpretante lógico. Essa noção mudaria a idéia - que infelizmente continua sendo tão propalada - de que a semiose é um processo infinito abstrato, sem conexão com o agir humano. Se assim fosse, a semiose não teria conexão com o pragmatismo. Quando descobriu o papel do interpretante lógico no hábito e do interpretante último na mudança de hábito, Peirce aliou a natureza processual da semiose com o pragmatismo. Dessa síntese resultou o caráter evolucionista do seu pragmatismo.Palavras-chave: Interpretante lógico. Semiose. Hábito. Pragmatismo.: After 1900, Peirce engaged himself in the development of his theory of signs, particularly in the theory of interpretants and even more specifically in the theory of the logical interpretants, since the latter represented the touchstone for linking pragmatism to the theory of signs. In 1907, he declared that the problem of what the "meaning" of an intellectual concept is could only be solved by the study of the interpretants, or the proper significate effects of signs. It was within this concept that Peirce developed his famous subdivision of interpretants in emotional, energetic and logical. Peirce stated in 1968 that the interpretant of a thought is another thought, and that this process, theoretically, is infinite. Many authors impressed with this assertion, and without bothering to follow the progress of this concept throughout Peirce's works, favored that infinite semiosis, so often referred to. Umberto Eco, for instance, was one author who made extensive use of this notion of infinitude. The aim of this paper is to discuss the transformation that this concept of interpretant has undergone in Peircean works, particularly after 1907, when Peirce introduced his notion of the logical interpretant. This notion would come to change the idea - which unfortunately continues widespread - that semiosis is an abstract infinite process, unconnected with human action. Were it so, semiosis would bear no relation with pragmatism. When Peirce discovered the role of the logical interpretant in habit, and of the ultimate interpretant in the change of habit, he combined the processual nature of semiosis with pragmatism. From this synthesis derived the evolutionist character of his pragmatism.Key-words: Logical interpretant. Semiosis. Habit. Pragmatism. (shrink)

This paper explores the critical conditions of such semiotic realism that is commonly presumed in the so-called Copenhagen interpretation of biosemiotics. The central task is to make basic biosemiotic concepts as clear as possible by applying C.S. Peirce’s pragmaticist methodology to his own concepts, especially to those that have had a strong influence on the Copenhagian biosemiotics. It appears essential to study what kinds of observation the basic semiotic concepts are derived from. Peirce had two different derivations to the concept (...) of sign, both having a strong logical character. Therefore, it is discussed at length what Peirce’s conception of logic consists of and how logical concepts relate to the concepts of other sciences. It is shown that Peirce had two different perspectives toward sign, the ‘transcendental’ one and the objective one, and only the latter one is executable in biosemiotic applications. Although Peirce’ theory of signs seems to appear as twofold (if not even manifold), it is concluded that the ore conception has been stable. The apparent differences are presumably due to the different perspectives of consideration. Severe limitations for the application of Peirce’s semiotic concepts follow from this analysis that should be taken into account in biosemiotics relying on its Copenhagen interpretation. The first one concerns the ‘interpreter’ of a suggested biosemiotic sign — whether it is ‘we’ (as a ‘meta-agent’) or some genuine biosemiotic ‘object-agent’. Only if the latter one is determinable, some real biosemiotic sign-action may occur. The second one concerns the application of the concept of the object of sign — its use is limited so that a sign has an object if and only if it seeks a true conception about it. This conclusion has drastic further consequences. Most of the genuinely biosemiotic sign-processes do not tend toward truth about anything but toward various practical ends. Therefore, the logical concept of sign, e.g. the one of Peirce’s semeiotic, is an insufficient concept for biosemiotics. In order to establish a sufficient one, Peircean theoretical ethics and esthetics are introduced. It is concluded that they involve simpler and more general but still normative concept of sign — the concept of anticipative or constructive representation that does not represent any object at all. Instead, it is a completely future-oriented representation that guides action. Objective ethics provides the suitable concept of representation, but it appeals to objective esthetics that provides a theory of (local) natural self-normativity. The concepts of objective logic form the special species of objective ethics. The conclusion is that biosemiotics should be based on applied objective ethics and esthetics rather than on (Peircean semeiotic) logic and its metaphysical application. Finally, the physiosemiotic over-generalization of the concept of sign is shortly discussed. It is suggested that it would be more appropriate to rename such controversial generalizations than to adhere to semiotic terminology. Here, again, Peirce appears as a healthy role model with his ‘ethics of terminology’. (shrink)