Why are we Semioticians Ignored?
“I will not see the results of my work in my lifetime”, says John Deely. Let’s look at what he has done, why it has not been accepted and what the future may bring in terms of further insights. If the cenoscopic and ideoscopic developments of the last four centuries teach us that science has to take into consideration the reality around us; and the developing use of semiotics in that mix opens the post-modern development, as Deely insists (and most of us agree), why is the doctrine of semeiosis not more widely used or understood? Add another parameter to the map, in that stochastic (random) activity that perturbs the “balance” between what is known through signs or through instruments or the interplay between them, the resultant understanding is never fully predictive. Will Deely’s strengths and weaknesses aid our quest for truth?