Dear Garry F., Should you please let us know where John Deely defines anthroposemiosis as "human linguistic communication", we would be most appreciative.
Yours sincerely, Robert Junqueira <[email protected]> escreveu (domingo, 12/01/2025 à(s) 17:15): > Paul, list, > > Thank you for that pointer to Deely’s *Purely Objective Reality*! Since I > read it over a decade ago, I’d forgotten all about it, but I dug up my copy > hoping to answer the immediate question on my mind: “intersubjectivity is > not enough” *for what?* Halfway through Deely’s chapter (page 151, > specifically) I realized that what he meant was this: Intersubjectivity is > not enough to account for *anthroposemiosis,* or human linguistic > communication. > > Deely’s reason for saying this is that “intersubjectivity,” for him, is a > relation between organisms, “something that exists in the world, beyond > (over and above) subjectivity, whether or not anybody is aware of its > existence; its reality is “hardcore”, not socially constructed” (p. 151). > But Harari’s definition and examples of intersubjectively created entities > show that for him they *are* socially constructed (mostly by “stories > people tell one another”). > > What’s behind this discrepancy is that Deely, like Peirce and unlike > Harari, generally uses the term “subject” as it was used in the Latin age > of philosophy, and avoids the more Kantian sense of “subjectivity.” (See > Peirce’s *Century Dictionary* entry on “objective”, which is reproduced > in *Turning Signs* at https://gnusystems.ca/TS/rlb.htm#bjctv. On Peirce’s > usage see Objecting and Realizing (TS ·12) > <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/blr.htm#x08>.) > > So I don’t think Deely’s chapter really answers the question posed by Gary > R. I’d like to rephrase it as follows: would Peirce recognize some entities > as *socially constructed* *realities*? I think I could supply a number of > Peirce quotes that show him doing that, but I’d rather hear what others > think on the question first. > > Love, gary f. > > Coming from the ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg > > > > *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> *On > Behalf Of *Paul Cobley > *Sent:* 12-Jan-25 06:01 > *To:* Gary Richmond <[email protected]>; [email protected] > *Cc:* Gary Fuhrman <[email protected]>; Benjamin Udell <[email protected] > > > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Intersubjective Reality > > > > Gary R, list, > > > > Thanks for introducing discussion of this very interesting topic. > > > > One would expect Harari, bearing in mind his main audience, to rely on a > concept such as intersubjectivity. > > > > But, in answer to your question ‘Is Harari’s concept of “intersubjective > reality” compatible with Peircean realism?’, the most direct and extensive > discussion of this issue that I have come across was offered by John Deely > nearly 23 years ago. > > > > John’s conclusions can be found in Chapter 9 of his 2009 book, *Purely > Objective Reality* (Berlin: de Gruyter). The chapter, aptly, carries the > title of the original 2002 lecture: ‘Why intersubjectivity is not enough’. > > > > There he outlines the concept of suprasubjectivity to explicate what he > sees as compatible with Peircean realism. > > > > Best, > > > > Paul > > > > *From: *[email protected] <[email protected]> on > behalf of Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > *Date: *Saturday, 11 January 2025 at 21:22 > *To: *[email protected] <[email protected]> > *Cc: *Gary Fuhrman <[email protected]>, Benjamin Udell <[email protected] > > > *Subject: *[PEIRCE-L] Intersubjective Reality > > List, > > > > Gary Fuhrman, whom I sometimes think of as a philosopher of the > Anthropocene, in the course of revising a section of his online book, *Turning > Signs *[https://gnusystems.ca/TS/], forwarded a link to that section to > see what I thought of his revision (I've read *TS* online and in its > print version, and have discussed *TS* often with Fuhrman off List and in > his blog). > > > > In the section [linked to below] he remarks that Yuval Noah Harari > posits, in addition to the *objective reality* and *subjective reality* we > Peirceans are all fairly familiar with, an *intersubjective reality*. > Fuhrman later sent me a longer quote which, I think, helps clarify exactly > what Harari means by "intersubjective reality" (I'll give the shorter quote > in the context of Fuhrman's comments on it a bit later) in this post. > > "The two levels of reality that preceded storytelling are objective > reality and subjective reality. Objective reality consists of things like > stones, mountains, and asteroids—things that exist whether we are aware of > them or not. An asteroid hurtling toward planet Earth, for example, exists > even if nobody knows it’s out there. Then there is subjective reality: > things like pain, pleasure, and love that aren’t “out there” but rather “in > here.” Subjective things exist in our awareness of them. An unfelt ache is > an oxymoron. > > > > "But some stories are able to create a third level of reality: > intersubjective reality. Whereas subjective things like pain exist in a > single mind, intersubjective things like laws, gods, nations, corporations, > and currencies exist in the nexus between large numbers of minds. More > specifically, they exist in the stories people tell one another. The > information humans exchange about intersubjective things doesn’t represent > anything that had already existed prior to the exchange of information; > rather, the exchange of information creates these things."—Harari, Yuval > Noah. Nexus (p. 25). McClelland & Stewart. Kindle Edition. > > > > I think that Peirce, should he have accepted the concept, might include > these intersubjective realities with other symbols inhabiting his *Third > Universe of Experience*. In the quotation below I've put those that might > be examples of intersubjective realities in boldface. > > > > The third Universe comprises everything whose being consists in active > power to establish connections between different objects, especially > between objects in different Universes. Such is everything which is > essentially a Sign -- not the mere body of the Sign, which is not > essentially such, but, so to speak, the Sign's Soul, which has its Being in > its power of serving as intermediary between its Object and a Mind. Such, > too, is a living consciousness, and such the life, the power of growth, of > a plant. *Such is a living constitution -- a daily newspaper, a great > fortune, a social "movement."* CP 6.455 > > > In *Turning Signs* Fuhrman puts these in the context of language, > communication, information, community, relations and, perhaps especially, > dialogue -- but *not* truth. See: https://gnusystems.ca/TS/dlg.htm#ntrsbj > Here, Fuhrman comments, then quotes Harari: > > > > Humans are social animals who have used language for millennia to > cooperate with others. Without it, and without the information networks > which enable communication at ever larger scales, they could not have > attained the dominance over life on Earth that we now call the > Anthropocene <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene>. Some > information networks enable humans to learn the *truth* about what they > call “objective” reality, which is what it is regardless of what anyone > thinks about it. But every sentient being has to sense its reality on its > own, separately and “subjectively.” Consequently, both communication and > power relations within the community depend on *intersubjective* realities > <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/gld.htm#ntrsb>, as Yuval Harari calls them in > *Nexus* (2024, 25): ‘they exist in the stories people tell one another.’ > Not all these stories reflect “objective” reality, but they can be ‘real > powers in the world’ (Peirce <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/sdg.htm#hsabstr>), > and some information networks propagate them in order to maintain or modify > a social *order*. The objects referred to by many symbols are among the > intersubjective realities which people may naively confuse with “objective” > *truth*. > > "Contrary to what the naive view of information says, information has no > essential link to truth, and its role in history isn’t to represent a > preexisting reality. Rather, what information does is to create *new* > realities > by tying together disparate things— whether couples or empires. Its > defining feature is connection rather than representation, and information > is whatever connects different points into a network. Information doesn’t > necessarily inform us about things. Rather, it puts things in formation." > (Harari 2024, 12) > > One question immediately comes to mind: Is Harari’s concept of > “intersubjective reality” compatible with Peircean realism? I’d be > interested in hearing list members' thoughts on this question. > > > > Best, > > > > Gary R > > > > PS My first attempt at sending this email failed as the default address is > the old iupui one, so was undeliverable. Ben,, is there any way to make the > new iu address the default address? > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at > https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at > https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the > links! > ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] > . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] > with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in > the body. More at https://list.iu.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell. >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iu.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
