List In 1997 I organized an international semiotics conference at the University of Toronto, titled: ’Semiois, Evolution, :Energy: Towards a Reconceptualization of the Sign. Both Sebeok and Deely were there and both gave papers. I then published an edition of some of the conference papers [Shaker Verlag, 1999].
Sebeok did not submit a paper for the publication, but John Deely did - and I put his paper as the first in the edition.” Postmodernism and the Perfusion of Signs [pp7-13]. He does define human beings as ‘linguistic animals’ [7] and differentiates between the ‘objective world’ ,,and ’the universe of signs [ 8] and defines semiotics as becoming ‘aware that there are signs’ [[13]. That is, he seems to define semiotics as the consciousness that the objective world’s objects are signs when they are used as a ’social function’ [11] - which means a conscious relationship to these objects. I don’t happen to agree with him [since I support semiosis within the physicochemical and biological realms without consciousness of such actions] - but that’s irrelevant. Other conference participants had papers in these areas. Edwina > On Jan 13, 2025, at 8:26 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Robert, list, > > John Deely defines “anthroposemiosis” as “the species-specifically human use > of signs, rooted in language” (Four Ages of Understanding, p. 629). My > expression was not a direct quote, or I would have cited the source as I have > here. > > Deely generally followed Thomas Sebeok in making an absolute distinction > between human language and the communication faculties of other animals, as > he explained in Chapter 9 of Purely Objective Reality. He also called homo > sapiens “the semiotic species”, because all animals use signs, but only > humans know that there are signs, and therefore only humans do semiotics > (i.e. talk about signs, as we are doing here). > > By the way, Paul Cobley mentioned Deely’s term “suprasubjectivity”, which I > didn’t find in Chapter 9 of the book, but it’s in Chapter 2 of Purely > Objective Reality. How that concept relates to what Yuval Harari calls > “intersubjectivity” is a metasemiotic question that I won’t go into here. > > Love, gary f. > > Coming from the ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg > > } Ecologically speaking, the trouble with the human race is that it's getting > too big for its niches. [gnox] { > https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ Turning Signs <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/> > > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf > Of Robert Junqueira > Sent: 13-Jan-25 07:42 > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Cc: Paul Cobley <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Intersubjective Reality > > 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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> On >> Behalf Of Paul Cobley >> Sent: 12-Jan-25 06:01 >> To: Gary Richmond <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> Cc: Gary Fuhrman <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; Benjamin >> Udell <[email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> on >> behalf of Gary Richmond <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Date: Saturday, 11 January 2025 at 21:22 >> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Cc: Gary Fuhrman <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, Benjamin >> Udell <[email protected] <mailto:[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 <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at >> https://www.cspeirce.com <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] >> <mailto:[email protected]> . >> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] >> <mailto:[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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
