Gary R - thanks for providing the article - I'll try to get to it in a few days.
Just a few comments from the abstract and your observations: - There is a great deal of interest in semiotics within human computer interaction, computer, AI, ..as well as the biological and physico-chemical realms. - I agree with you that language is not the base of semiotics. Semiotics has nothing to do with language; that's only one type of semiosis. - but the 'sign model' is, in my view, a very good model of semiotics. To me, the Sign is a unit-of-organized-information. It is organized semiotically; ie, within the triad. Such a Sign can be an atom, molecule, cell, bee, flower, ...or a word, painting or a whole society. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary Richmond To: Peirce-L Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 3:05 PM Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Is specialization ia necessary condition for the progress of Peircean semiotics? List, Cary Campbell posted this in the blog of the Semiotic Research Group. He points to an article by Mihai Nadin, "Reassessing the Foundations of Semiotics: Preliminaries." http://www.nadin.ws/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/nadin-article_ijsss-22.pdf [Campbell] I have never come across a text that better lays out the deplorable failure of semiotics (and semioticians) then this paper by Mihai Nadin. According to Nadin semiotics as it becomes a more and more cloistered and insular discipline has missed out on making important contributions to disciplines where a semiotic perspective would be extremely enriching. Disciplines such as Human computer Interaction, AI, nanotechnology, computer science generally, stem cell research, genetics, etc… He asks the important question; would Peirce, or Hjemslev, or even Barthes miss the opportunity to approach these important subjects? “In other words, there is proof that semiotics can do better than indulge in useless speculative language games as it does in our time. What I suggest is that specialization is a necessary condition for the progress of science. But not sufficient! Specialists --- and there are more and more of them --- ought to relate their discoveries to other fields, to build bridges. For this they need semiotics as an integral part of their way of thinking, as a technique of expression, and as a communication guide.” He locates much of this failure in semiotic’s perpetual obsession with centering the discipline on the sign model. “Semiotics, if founded not around the sign concept --- quite counter intuitive when it comes to language (where is the sign: the alphabet, the word, the sentence?) --- but with the understanding of the interactions language make possible, would contribute more than descriptions, usually of no consequence to anyone, and post facto explanations.” I really believe this is a must read for anyone who sees value in the semiotic world view and the future of the discipline. I have not yet completed the article, but find its premise intriguing. It seems clear enough, and I agree with Nadin that "Specialists [. . .] ought to relate their discoveries to other fields, to build bridges. For this they need semiotics as an integral part of their way of thinking, as a technique of expression, and as a communication guide.” On the other hand I'm not sure that I can agree with him that "“Semiotics [should be founded] not around the sign concept [. . .] but with the understanding of the interactions language make possible. Wouldn't his apparent deemphasis of "the sign concept" in favor of "the understanding of the interactions language make possible" tend to contradict Peirce's powerful notion that semiotics ought *not* be language based? I'm wondering what others on the list may think of Nadin's argument. Here is the abstract of the paper linked to above. ABSTRACT What justifies a discipline is its grounding in practical activities. Documentary evidence is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for viability. This applies to semiotics as it applies to mathematics, physics, chemistry, computer science, and all other forms of questioning the world. While all forms of knowledge testify to the circularity of the epistemological effort, semiotics knowledge is doubly cursed. There is no knowledge that can be expressed otherwise than in semiotic form; knowledge of semiotics is itself expressed semiotically. Semiotics defined around the notion of the sign bears the burden of unsettled questions prompted by the never-ending attempt to define signs. This indeterminate condition is characteristic of all epistemological constructs, whether in reference to specific knowledge domains or semiotics. The alternative is to associate the knowledge domain of semiotics with the meta-level, i.e., inquiry of what makes semiotics necessary. In a world of action-reaction, corresponding to a rather poor form of causality, semiotics is not necessary. Only in acknowledging the anticipatory condition of the living can grounding for semiotics be found. This perspective becomes critical in the context of a semiotized civilization in which the object level of human effort is progressively replaced by representations (and their associated interpretations). I've been traveling, and am now preparing for yet more travel beginning this weekend, but I'll try to complete the Nadin article this week if anyone here is interested in discussing it. Best, Gary Gary Richmond Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication Studies LaGuardia College of the City University of New York C 745 718 482-5690 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- 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 .
