>” 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.“
Edwina, you state that you do not wish to debate this, so my address is to the rest of the list: · Edwina’s interpretation brings to the fore a crucial aspect of Peircean semiotics – and importantly, biosemiotics. The economy is a creation of human semiosis. People are motivated to desire and create the things (e.g., technology, commodities) that constitute the economy, and this drives the economy. In this sense, mind precedes matter, and mind-bodies (matriarchy/patriarchy) are first cause. It is the primary nurturer, most often the mother (matriarchy), that first teaches her infant that the economy matters, and how her infant is to behave in that economy. If the child’s mother is a wolf (eg, the wild boy of Aveyron), that feral child will never learn that the economy matters, and so it is going to have adjustment issues. · The economy is certainly a part of the world of human experience, hence an important part of the Umwelt. But the family setting is also an important part of the Umwelt, and it is the first setting that a newborn encounters at that stage in their life that the brain is rapidly wiring itself up into its functional specialisations. · Now it is certainly reasonable to suggest that under unusual circumstances, you might artificially be able to flip the matriarchy/patriarchy script in a culture... one only need look to modern feminism to see that there is indeed a force in that direction. But such a system is unstable, because you will never do away with the mind-body unity that establishes male and female predispositions. Thus the system will revert to matriarchal/patriarchal scripts when the artificially imposed constraints are removed. tl;dr? To cut a long story short, before the economy and social structures can impact on our lives, we need to learn that the economy and social structures matter. Pragmatism 1:001. sj From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, 3 July 2015 12:54 AM To: Benjamin Udell; [email protected] Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection 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 <mailto:[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 . -- Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net _____ ----------------------------- 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
