Abstract
This article offers an interpretation of Peirce’s pan-semeiotic view of the universe. According to Peirce, the entire universe is composed of signs or processes of signification (see for example CP 5.448 footnote). The consequence of this can be seen as twofold: processes of signification have a naturalistic foundation and the universe has an inherent semeiotic character. Peirce understands the universe as depending on the relationship between things, which can become signs and signs, can only become interpreted by other signs and so on ad infinitum (CP 8.191; see also Fisch 1986). Furthermore, man himself is a symbol, says Peirce, and, of course, the cultures of which he is a member must also be interpenetrated and work by the logic of signs. Hence, universe, man, and culture come together because of the sign relation having a rationale in a strong ontology. Or put in other words: Peirce’s sign is truly general and ontological and he sees continuity wherever he looks and for him there is no absolute separation between the processes of the universe, the existence of man, and culture mediating between the first mentioned. Peirce himself did not, however, to the best of our knowledge, explicitly unfold this semeiotic relationship between universe, man, and culture, and the aim of the following is to show a glimpse of this semeiotic relationship also remembering, to some extent, the ontological rationale it purports to yield with its metaphysical synechism. We see the glimpse of the relationship between universe, man, and culture from Peirce’s three sign trichotomies of 1903 where we find some of his most mature thoughts concerning semeiotic.
References
Fisch, M. 1986. Peirce, semeiotic and pragmatism: Essays by Max H. Fisch. Kenneth L. Ketner & Christian J. W. Kloesel (eds.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Greenlee, D. 1973. Peirce’s concept of sign. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783110886443Search in Google Scholar
Haley, Michael C. 1988. The semeiosis of poetic metaphor. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hookway, C. 1985. Peirce. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Liszka, J. J. 1996. A general introduction to the semeiotic of Charles Sanders Peirce. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Nöth, Winfried. 2010. The criterion of habit in Peirce’s definitions of the symbol. Transactions of the Charles Sanders Peirce Society 46(1). 82–93.10.2979/tra.2010.46.1.82Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles & Lady Victoria Welby. 1977. Semiotic and significs. Charles S. Hardwick (ed.). Bloomington: Indianapolis University Press. [Reference to this work will be designated SS followed by page number.].Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1966. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce, vol. 8. C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. W. Burks (eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Reference to Peirce’s papers will be designated CP followed by volume and paragraph number.].Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1992. Essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings, vol. 1, 1867–1893. N. Houser & C. Kloesel (eds.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [Reference to vol. 1 of Essential Peirce will be designated EP 1.].Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1998. Essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings, vol. 2, 1893–1913. Peirce Edition Project (eds.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [Reference to vol. 2 of Essential Peirce will be designated EP 2.].Search in Google Scholar
Petrilli, S. 2006. Meaning, metaphor, and interpretation: Modeling new worlds. Semiotica 161(1/4). 75–119.10.4324/9780203792476-7Search in Google Scholar
Savan, D. 1987–1988. An introduction to Peirce’s full system of semiotic. Toronto: Victoria College.Search in Google Scholar
Schlüter, S. 2000. Individuum und Gemeinschaft. Socialphilosophie im Denkweg under im system von Charles Sanders Peirce. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Search in Google Scholar
Short, T. L. 2007. Peirce’s theory of signs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511498350Search in Google Scholar
Stjernfelt, F. 2014. Natural propositions. Boston: Docent Press.Search in Google Scholar
Thellefsen, M., T. Thellefsen & B. Sørensen. 2015. Introducing a semeiotic-inspired concept of information for library and information science: Breaking the boundaries of documents. Studia Kulturoznawcze 1(7). 267–280.Search in Google Scholar
Thellefsen, T., M. Thellefsen & B. Sørensen. 2013. Emotion, information and cognition and some possible consequences for Library and Information Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64. 1735–1750.10.1002/asi.22858Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
