Words in themselves, as objects, are not semiosic. When words are used within a relational interaction (with the self, with others) and are thus in a triadic relation (object- representamen-interpretant) ..then, that word is a Sign, and is semiosic.
Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Bev Corwin To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Benjamin Udell ; Peirce-L Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 7:56 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection 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 To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Benjamin Udell ; Peirce-L 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 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 .
