List members, "Semiotics has nothing to do with language; that's only one type of semiosis."
Isn't the first part of this statement contradicted by its second part ? It is this kind of contradictory remarks that we should all be careful of avoid making, I think, in order to reduce confusions in semiotic discourses. All the best. Sung On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > *To:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> > *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 > > > > > [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 > . > > > > > > -- 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 .
