Bev - sorry, I don't see that any grammar, including English, exerts any
'tyranny'. It's a basic infrastructure for assisting in defining the role of
the word/sound - whether it should function as a noun, verb, etc etc.
Infrastructure is akin to Peircean Thirdness after all.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Bev Corwin
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Benjamin Udell ; Peirce-L
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
And the tyranny of English grammar? Yes, I see. Best wishes.
Bev
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> 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
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 <tabor...@primus.ca>
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 <tabor...@primus.ca>
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: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
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
<bevcor...@gmail.com> 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
