What's fascinating to me in the work I am now doing is the way an effort to actually imagine a dialog between Jesus and Abba which I am working on segues with a dialog I'm currently working on involving CP2 (Logic) and Triadic Philosophy. For philosophy to progress I am guessing that many terms will need to be moved about to enable the entire project of philosophy to progress. How this can happen given the current fragmentation of disciplines and the profusion of variant (scholarly?) languages. I have no real idea. Cheers, S
Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3 On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Michael Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, Stephen, language does evolve, and probably in just the sense that > Darwin's concept of final cause adumbrates. Apropos, "in the beginning was > the word" seems most apt! > M. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Stephen C. Rose" > Sent: Nov 22, 2015 1:01 PM > To: Michael Shapiro , Peirce List > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Semeiotic Neostructuralism and Language > > This is most interesting Michael. If I were to say that language evolves > would that make sense in terms of this? Or, more precisely, that progress > necessitates the evolution of meanings via words? I have been working on a > project which in essence looks back to what we might see as creation and > what engenders evolution and I must assume that whatever else may be the > whole kahuna of creation it must contain a vocal element merely to be able > to relate to its evolving reality. In other words, "In the beginning was > the word". > > Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl > Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3 > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Michael Shapiro <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Dear Peirce-Listers, >> >> >> I'm posting below some material from the second edition (currently in >> progress) of my book* The Speaking Self: Language Lore and English Usage >> *in case anybody is interested in a conception of language structure >> that repudiates the Chomskyan model and asserts one that is strictly >> anchored to Peircean pragmaticism (prominently including his >> semeiotic).This material is also part of my paper "Paradox: Theme and >> Semiotic Variations," which recently appeared in *Semiotics 2014: The >> Semiotics of Paradox*, ed. J. Pelkey et al., 1-28. (SSA Yearbook, 2. Ottawa: >> Legas, 2015). I'll be glad to send you a PDF of the latter upon request. >> >> Michael >> >> >> P. S. Many years ago, in a publication I can't now remember, Chomsky >> stated, when asked who his favorite philosopher was, that it was Peirce. In >> my opinion, whatever reading of Peirce's rationalism there is that can be >> attributed to Chomsky, none of it that can be called accurate is compatible >> with generative grammar. >> >> *5.29 Semeiotic Neostructuralism and Language* >> >> >> >> *GLOSSARY* >> >> >> >> *cortex*, n.: outer layer of neural tissue in humans and other mammals >> >> *postbiotic, *adj.: pertaining to the period following the appearance of >> life >> >> *pragmaticism*, n.: the pragmatic philosophy of C. S. Peirce >> >> *semeiotic*, adj. < *semeiosis*, n.: the process whereby something >> functions as a sign >> >> *teleology*, n.: a metaphysical doctrine explaining phenomena and events >> by final causes >> >> >> >> Readers of this book who have an interest in the conceptual >> underpinnings of its vignettes may benefit from being reminded of some of >> the main points in which the doctrine christened “semeiotic >> neostructuralism” (in the spirit of C. S. Peirce’s pragmaticism) by the >> author differs fundamentally from the dominant paradigm of contemporary >> linguistics, which is nominally identified with Chomsky and his >> followers––regardless, nota bene, whether these latter-day practitioners >> have renamed their particular enterprise (e. g., “Optimality Theory” or >> “Cognitive Linguistics;” ALL linguistics is necessarily ‘cognitive’, hence >> CL is a pleonasm) so as to differentiate it from what was originally called >> “tranformational” or “generative” grammar. >> >> Chomsky has a rather mechanistic/mechanicalist view of >> language, for all that he understands that the freedom to compose sentences >> that are original, unpredictable, and yet intelligible is different from >> the unoriginal, predictable products of strictly mechanical action. His >> view is mechanistic nonetheless because he simply posits underlying >> structures by which sentences are to be generated. Possibly in a wider >> perspective, Chomsky is no more reductively mechanistic than a semeiotic >> neostructuralist, in a wider perspective, is a phenomenalist. For he no >> doubt admits (or would admit) that the linguistic universals in our brains >> are not just there, period, but evolved, with the brain’s evolution, as >> chance variants that were ‘selected’ by the principle of reproductive >> success. Similarly, the intentions or needs or felt urgencies to speak or >> to achieve certain outcomes might explain––but only in a context wider than >> Chomskyan linguistics––why language’s generative mechanisms are used in >> this way rather than in that. >> >> But if we focus simply on the linguist’s study, as diversely >> conceived by Chomsky and the semeiotic neostructuralist, then there is >> this difference: for the one, the teleology of language is excluded from >> linguistic explanation, while for the other it is the very stuff of >> explanation. For the one, linguistic phenomena conform to a describable >> structure of highly abstract laws, while for the other linguistic phenomena >> exhibit an intelligible if less abstract, more complicated structure. For >> the one, the system is a given, and any changes in it are accidental, while >> for the other development is essential to language––development is more the >> reality than is any one system of rules––and that development is also >> intelligible and not merely given. >> >> That is the conflict. The reason the semeiotic >> neostructuralist approach is, if it is successful, superior is that it can >> be used to explain the very evolution of the brain-mechanism or linguistic >> capacities and universals that Chomsky can at best describe. That is, given >> creatures somewhat sociable, exchanging signs as their way of life, then >> the survival value of their communicating more elaborate and precise >> diagrams would explain the retention of those fortuitous variations, say, >> in brain structure that promote exactly such powers of expressible >> diagrammatization. That is, the principle of this evolution will be itself >> linguistic, and continuous with the principles of postbiotic, strictly >> linguistic evolution. >> >> The thought here is not unlike that which refuses to >> postulate linguistic intentions separate from the capacity to exercise >> those intentions. Just as there could be no desire to speak without an >> ability to speak, so also there could be no evolution of linguistic >> capacities––even, or especially, at the physiological level––except among >> those who, already speaking to one another, will more likely survive as a >> species if they speak more effectively. Thus, instead of a >> neurophysiological explanation of language, we have a linguistic >> explanation of the higher cortex––and probably not just the speech centers >> either, since so many of our capacities for sensation and action would be >> bootless without our capacities for speech. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 .
