Edwina, list,
I think we'll have space to discuss these finer points within the Stjernfelt
seminar, and as your last line suggests, we should leave them until then, so
that we'll be starting out on the same page, as it were.
In the tentative schedule attached, I've given September 1 as a start date,
but it may have to be later, as several people have told me offlist that
they are interested but haven't had a chance to read far into the book yet.
I think we need to have leaders or co-leaders lined up for the first three
sections after Frederik's introduction before we can actually start (but the
other chapters will fall into place with relative ease after we've dealt
with chapters 2 and 3). So there's still time, two or three weeks at least,
for volunteers to step forward for those early chapters.
For those who haven't already decided to devote some attention to Natural
Propositions, I would say that its crucial idea (or one of them) is
encapsulated in this sentence from Peirce (EP2:304): What we call a "fact"
is something having the structure of a proposition, but supposed to be an
element of the very universe itself. That's from "Kaina Stoicheia", and
peirce-l veterans will recall that we engaged for some time in a slow read
of that essay but it petered out somewhere around that page. So in a way,
the Stjernfelt seminar will resurrect that other study, I think.
gary f.
} Sifted science will do your arts good. [Finnegans Wake 440] {
<http://www.gnusystems.ca/gnoxic.htm> www.gnusystems.ca/gnoxic.htm }{
gnoxics
From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 3-Aug-14 1:09 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [biosemiotics:6337] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for
Gary F- further to your sentence:
the disconnect between a physics-based concept of "symbol" and the
functional semiotic concept of "symbol".
I agree; I don't see how, in the biological realm, that the symbol, which is
as a Relation, a purely mental relation between the Representamen and the
Object, can then continue on into the mediative nature of the Representamen
and the 'conclusion' that is the Interpretant.
In the Dicisign, the Representamen-Object relation operates as a symbol; the
Representamen is a Legisign, i.e., a law. Those are two modes of Thirdness
and Thirdness is 'the mental' mode. But importantly, the Interpretant is in
Secondness, which firmly locates this seemingly purely mental semiosic act
in the particular and existential. Thus, it becomes a 'proposition' or
'minor premise', which is to say - individually existential. This is a
powerful statement; it seems to be saying that the 'mental' becomes
individually 'materialized'.
Take a look at the Dicent Indexical Legisign. Here, the Representamen-Object
relation operates an an index, i.e., direct physical contact. The mediative
action remains as a Legisign, in Thirdness, and the Interpretant is in
Secondness. BUT, this is a mechanical semiosis, for the 'input' of Mind
within the Representamen-Object interaction is missing; it's a purely
physical contact.
That is, the dicisign seems to be explaining the fundamental role of Mind
within the material world. However - I must wait until I get Frederik's
book....
Edwina
| Chapter |
Natural Propositions |
Threadleader(s) |
Start date |
| 1 |
introduction |
Frederik Stjernfelt |
1 Sep |
| 2 |
anti-psychologism |
|
8 Sep |
| 3.1-7 |
dicisigns I |
|
22 Sep |
| 3.8-14 |
dicisigns II |
|
6 Oct |
| 4 |
naturalization |
|
20 Oct |
| 5 |
cognition |
|
3 Nov |
| 6 |
evolution |
Jeff Downard |
17 Nov |
| 7 |
beyond language |
|
1 Dec |
| 8 |
iconicities |
Gary Richmond |
15 Dec |
| 9 |
diagrams I |
|
29 Dec |
| 10 |
diagrams II |
|
5 Jan |
| 11-12 |
enlightenment |
Yogi Hendlin |
12 Jan |
-----------------------------
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 the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
