Edwina, list, Just a few brief interleaved remarks.
Gary, thanks for the link to Nadin's Powerpoint. You're welcome. I found the ppt show of considerable interest myself and may have more to say about parts of it at a later date. ET: Just a brief comment - Nadin uses the triangle as an image for the Peircean triad - and I consider this a problem. The image of the triangle is closed and linear; the best image for the Peircean triad is the one Peirce himself used: (1.347), the three-spoked umbrella. It's not linear; it's interactive; it enables, importantly, networking...for no Peircean sign exists on its own; it's always networked. I myself don't have that much of a problem with this use of the triangle. For one thing, Peirce *does* use the triangle, notably in the famous Welby diagram, to show triadic relations in semiotics. Granted, these are analytically 'frozen' relations, so speak, but they are quite convenient in certain cases. Indeed they can, as in the Welby diagram, reveal information wjocj other diagrammatic techniques wouldn't show as well (for example, the central trikon which you have occasionally referred to in the Welby diagram; and there are other relations the Welby triangle reveals). But I agree with you that for many purposes the three-pronged figure is "more iconic" than the triangle. But, just to argue this a bit further, draw three lines from the vertices of an equilateral triangle to its center and you have the three-spoked figure. This is to say that the triangle implies the three-spokes, while a particular abstracted diagram may not require it. So, again, and in a word, I don't think one need insist on the three-spoked figure in all instances. But I would tend to agree with you that for many purposes (beyond certain analytical ones such as the classification of sign types) that the three-spoked figure is preferable for the reasons you gave. ET: And I have a problem with his definition of the sign as "a 'unity' ...[no, that implies closure and the point of the semiosic sign is its openness]..of "represented object (O), means of representation (R) and process (infinite) of interpretation (I)." Again, I haven't as much a problem with this as you have, although Nadin might have found a better expression, perhaps "consistency" or "integrity" (rather than "unity"). See for example: Again, consciousness is sometimes used to signify the I think, or unity in thought; but the unity is nothing but consistency, or the recognition of it. Consistency belongs to every sign, so far as it is a sign; and therefore every sign, since it signifies primarily that it is a sign, signifies its own consistency. CP 5.314 ET: Just a small point but I don't think that the Representamen is the 'means of representation' but the action of mediative transformation. Perhaps that's what he means by the phrase 'means of representation'. Although Nadin's terminology here may seem a bit imprecise, still there is precedent for it in Peirce's own writings (where 'means' is made equivalent to '3ns'). See for example: . . . Now the word *means* is almost an exact synonym to the word third. It certainly involves Thirdness. Moreover, he who wills is conscious of doing so, in the sense of representing to himself that he does so. But representation is precisely genuine Thirdness.. . . CP 1.532 ET: His contrast of machines is nice, with their rejection of ambiguity (thank goodness - we don't need machines debating between Stop and Go)....and life, which is necessarily open to interpretation. I like the contrast he makes between machines and life as well since it drives home the point in the clearest way possible. ET: The best conference, I think, on anticipation - within computers, AI, economics, biology and physics - remains Daniel Dubois CASYS (Computing Anticipatory Systems) in Liege, Belgium. I'll have to look into this. Thanks especially for your remarks on terminology as I think it is important to be as clear and precise as possible in this matter in all branches of science, semiotics, philosophy, etc. But it is sometimes difficult to do this, so that as important as terminology was for Peirce (and there would seem to be no doubt that it was), this was famously a problem for him as well. But having a shared terminology we all (that is, we within a given discipline) have agreed upon--that 'agreement' being another problem) is no doubt a scientific desideratum, while some sciences have done a better job than others, I think. Best, Gary [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary, thanks for the link to Nadin's Powerpoint. > > Just a brief comment - Nadin uses the triangle as an image for the > Peircean triad - and I consider this a problem. The image of the triangle > is closed and linear; the best image for the Peircean triad is the one > Peirce himself used: (1.347), the three-spoked umbrella. It's not linear; > it's interactive; it enables, importantly, networking...for no Peircean > sign exists on its own; it's always networked. > > And I have a problem with his definition of the sign as "a 'unity' ...[no, > that implies closure and the point of the semiosic sign is its > openness]..of "represented object (O), means of representation (R) and > process (infinite) of interpretation (I)." > > Just a small point but I don't think that the Representamen is the 'means > of representation' but the action of mediative transformation. Perhaps > that's what he means by the phrase 'means of representation'. > > His contrast of machines is nice, with their rejection of ambiguity (thank > goodness - we don't need machines debating between Stop and Go)....and > life, which is necessarily open to interpretation. > > The best conference, I think, on anticipation - within computers, AI, > economics, biology and physics - remains Daniel Dubois CASYS (Computing > Anticipatory Systems) in Liege, Belgium. > > Edwina > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > *To:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, August 24, 2015 3:21 PM > *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact > > > List, > > Cary Campbell of the Semiotic Research Group posted this summary of a > lecture, "Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact" and gives > a link to the accompanying ppt slideshow by Mihai Nadin (he inadvertently > misspells his first name as 'Mihou') on that group's Facebook page. > > Many years ago I read a number of Nadin's papers and had a fascinating > off-list discussion with him on his work, then focusing squarely on > Peirce's semiotic theory and, as I recall, especially Peirce's > understanding of virtuality. While Nadin has gone on to consider > applications of semiotic theory to computer science, HCI, and other fields, > it appears that his work continues to be 'grounded' in Peircean semiotics. > > Best, > > Gary > > > > Cary wrote: > > This is a super topical lecture from engineer/scientist/semiotician Mihou > Nadin; quite inspiring. > > He talks about man’s current and developing relations with technology and > how these relationships are slowly automating the human away; in which the > emphasis has shifted, since his pioneering work in interfaces and AI, from > making machines more like humans to making humans more like machines. > > This leads him to assert that the dynamism and complexity of life (Godel > defines complexity as the ability to interact) is not reducible to the > machine. Or in other words, signs (in the Peircean understanding that > always open up something new to an interpreter) are not reducible to > signals, which carry preformed and static data. Naturally, this calls for > him to explore Peircian interpretative semiotics. > > Here is also a pdf of his presentation to accompany the video: > http://www.nadin.ws/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/tartu_presentation.pdf > <http://l.facebook.com/l/VAQGMDKVvAQGJ132n81efy1uUwZdfD1Jrw_TeQ0Vj6Gc8lA/www.uttv.ee/naita?id=22396> > [image: Gary Richmond] > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *C 745* > *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* > > ------------------------------ > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
