Framework of Space and Time from the Proto-Semiotic Perspective
- 126 Downloads
The material underpinning of the action of signs is rooted in the priority of interactions. The evolutionary priority of interactions as envisioned from the proto-semiotic perspective renders both space and time as derivable from interactions, as demonstrating a sharp contrast to the classical, physical and theoretical notion of interactions as occurring in a prior transcendental presupposed space and time that are given prior to interactions. The proto-semiotic framework obtains space as resulting from shared resources among the material participants, whereas time is derived from the act of allocating the mutually shared resource. Consequential upon the priority of interactions is a suspension of the principle of contradiction as keeping the on-going action of signification, since time, while presiding over and embodying the allocation, is constantly progressing. The results of the action of signs as registered in the finished record necessarily meet the principle of contradiction. Nonetheless, the fulfilment of the principle right in the process of the on-going action of signification is constantly out of reach because of the inevitable spill-over of those material disturbances perturbing the likelihood of attaining the principle from within. Interacting atoms and molecules, when viewed from the perspective of time as being derived from the interactions, can be seen as agential in precipitating the principle of contradiction in the finished record out of the on-going evanescent dangers of disturbing that principle from within. Naturalization of the action of signs is sought within the natural capacity of time being capable of changing its own tense.
KeywordsContradiction Interaction Proto-semiotic Sign Space Tense Time
Thanks are due to the reviewers for suggestions.
- Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
- Barbour, J., 2009. The nature of time. arXiv:0903.3489v1.Google Scholar
- Deely, J. (2009). Augustine and Poinsot: The protosemiotic development (pp. 57–58). Chicago: Univ. Scranton Press.Google Scholar
- Hoffmeyer, J. (2008). Biosemiotics: An examination into the signs of life and the life of signs (pp. 62–65). Chicago: Univ. Scranton Press.Google Scholar
- Matsuno, K. (1984). Open systems and the origin of protoreproductive units. In M. W. Ho & P. T. Saunders (Eds.), Beyond Neo-Darwinism (pp. 61–88). London: Academi.Google Scholar
- Matsuno, K. (1989). Protobiology: Physical basis of biology. Chapter 2. Boca Raton: CRC.Google Scholar
- Matsuno, K., 2001. Tracing a faint fingerprint of the invisible hand? arXiv: cs/0104014v1.Google Scholar
- Matsuno, K. (2009). Interplay between rapid and slow quenching in prebiotic evolution. Viva Origino, 37, 1–6.Google Scholar
- Salthe, S. N. (1993). Development and evolution: Complexity and changes in biology. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
- Sebeok, T. A. (1985). Contributions of the doctrines of signs (p. 69). Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press.Google Scholar