Hi Edwina, Therefore, if your words are not a semiosic concept, are they semioitc?
Bev On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 7:49 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Bev - an outline of matriarchy/patriarchy is not, in itself, an 'applied > concept of Peircean semiosis'. You may have found the analysis 'insightful' > - I myself found it invalid but our opinions on 'insightful vs invalid' > are not relevant. What is relevant is: what does it have to do with > Peircean semiosis? > > As for 'emptiness' - a claim that X can refer to anything and everything > does not make X a universal *variable* but one without any meaning > whatsoever, in other words, empty. The term 'universal' can apply only to > *attributes*; so, we can say that finite existence is a universal > attribute of all matter on this planet. > > So, to say that 'because we* speak* in words that are signs', then, any > *concept* that we speak of using words, is a semiosic concept - is > invalid. Get it? > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Bev Corwin <[email protected]> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Benjamin Udell <[email protected]> ; Peirce-L > <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, July 02, 2015 7:18 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection > > I very much enjoyed the focus on applied concepts of the discussion and > found it very insightful. I don't see the reference of emptiness so much, > but more universal, perhaps. > > Bev > > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I'd agree with Ben; I don't think the list can be reduced to 'any and >> all topics'. It's a Peircean list. >> >> Sung, I suggest that your assertions that because we 'think, write and >> speak in signs' and that Peircean research was 'devoted to signs'...that >> your subsequent conclusion that 'any topics that we 'think, write and >> speak' are therefore valid on a Peircean list is a logical fallacy of >> circular reasoning. You've reduced the meaning of 'sign' to emptiness. >> >> As for Stephen and his matriarchal/patriarchal claims, my view is that >> they are analytically incorrect; I consider that he has ignored the >> economic mode and societal infrastructure as primarily causal of both these >> modes of organization (matriarchy/patriarchy) - but, since these factors >> are neither Peircean nor even semiosic, then, I have no intention of >> getting into a debate on this list. >> >> But I do acknowledge Stephen Rose's post - for often, even when a post >> states that it is Peircean related - this relation may be as invalid as >> Sung's illogical claim above - or, as well, a few posters seem >> isolate-in-themselves, speaking only for and about their own focus. This >> can result in a monologue or a dialogue engaged in only by one other >> person. That's what the 'delete' button is for. >> >> Edwina >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Benjamin Udell <[email protected]> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Sent:* Thursday, July 02, 2015 6:17 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Sung, all,Your post implies that we should emulate Peirce to a T but we >> can't emulate Peirce to a T because we aren't Peirce. PEIRCE-L is for >> Peirce-related discussion. Peirce himself was not focused on >> 'Peirce-related' discussion. Instead those who carry on prolonged, >> multi-post discussions of a given topic should clarify and thematize the >> topic's relation to Peirce because that is what is promised to subscribers >> and that is what most subscribers expect.That has been and will continue to >> be the policy of peirce-l.Best, Ben Udell as co-manager, peirce-l.* >> >> On 7/2/2015 5:42 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote: >> >> Bev, Gary, lists, >> >> I agree with Bev, because Peirce's whole career was devoted to the study >> of signs and "Peirce-related" is thus "sign-related", it seems to me. >> Besides, as I learned it from Peirce, we THINK, WRITE, and SPEAK in SIGNS, >> and hence whatever we post on these lists should be regarded as >> Peirce-related in one way or another, including linguistic texts, chemical >> equations, mathematical formulas, network diagrams, pictures, and whatever >> else that may emerge in the future as NEW means of communication and >> representation through the Internet. >> >> In other words, for me, semiotics is not yet closed. Its future should >> not be confined to studying MACRO-SEMIOTICS as constructed by Poinsot, >> Peirce, and others but should be open to studying both MICRO-SEMIOTICS as >> currently being developed in biosemiotics (.e.g., DNA as a molecular sign) >> and what may be called 'COSMO-SEMIOTICS' as may be developed in the future >> (e.g., viewing spiral galaxies as cosmological signs). Imagine what >> fantastic syntheses in philosophy Pierce's genius might be accomplishing >> now were he alive today ! >> >> All the best. >> >> Sung >> >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Bev Corwin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I enjoy all of the discussions and would prefer more broad than >>> restrictive frameworks. I consider restricting discussions as more >>> technocratic tactic / approach and not Perice related in style. >>> >>> Bev >>> >>> >
----------------------------- 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 .
