And the tyranny of English grammar? Yes, I see. Best wishes. Bev
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Benjamin Udell <[email protected]> ; Peirce-L > <[email protected]> > *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 <[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 .
