> On Nov 30, 2015, at 2:18 PM, Claudio Guerri <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jacques Lacan and Louis Althusser studied Peirce in a Seminar by Farnçois > Recanati in Paris, France, during the 50's...??? if somebody knows a good > reference, I would be glad to know more about...
That’s very interesting. I confess I’m not terribly a big Lacan fan. But I admit it might just be due to what I read. I didn’t know he’d studied Peirce as his semiotics always seemed far more Saussurean in what I read. I know Derrida had come to Harvard to study Peirce and the collection there. (His writings simply weren’t as well distributed at the time) I did a quick google and found a link to the Oxford Handbook of Process Philosophy <https://books.google.com/books?id=xmoFBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA145&lpg=PA145#v=onepage&q&f=false> that mentioned it. From the article on Peirce. Apart from philosophy, there are three specific areas where Peirce’s influence is particularly significant. Firstly his semiotic theory appears as one of the major references in modern linguistics, semiotics, and philosophy of language, with such prominent scholars as Roman Jakobson and Umberto Eco acknowledging their debt to him in most of their works. Secondly his theories of sign and abduction are frequent references in congnitive sciences, knowledge engineering and information systems. Thirdly Lacan’s discovery of Peirce’s triadic model paved the way for a stream of psychoanalysis focused on the triad ‘symbolic, imaginary and real’: ‘A man named Charles Sanders Peirce built a logic which, due to his focusing on relations, is triadic. I follow exactly the same track’ (Lacan, quoted by Balat, 2000:8). There are a couple of papers I found on Lacan/Peirce but unfortunately none were available on JSTOR. > Lacan was interested in the unconscious from a psychoanalytic point of view, > and he learned that besides his "the imaginary" (1ness) and "the symbolic" > (3ness, both derived from Ferdinand de Sussure's linguistic sign) he had to > add "the real" (2ness) that he defined as "the impossible", « la grimace du > réel »... or better (or in a more perverse way): "what never ceases to not > join the symbolic" (the translation from the Spanish version is mine...) > apparently, the French (original version) is. « ce qui ne cesse de ne pas > s'écrire »... > I think that it is a good conceptual approach to the Dynamic Object by > Peirce. For that and else... he was expelled from the IPA (International > Psychoanalytic Association)... Interesting again, although I admit to a very strong skepticism of psychoanalysis in general. My friends who do like it tend to like it more as a source of metaphors and structures than really taking it seriously on its own terms. It is interesting that I’ve heard that Saussure’s semiotics in practice (rather than as received) really was more Peircean than most realize. I’ve never been able to confirm this though. > Taking account of what happened to those two scholars... perhaps the 'triadic > relation' can be a very dangerous subject...!!!??? It’s quite interesting how dualisms of various sorts have continued to dominate so much in the academy. Long after I’d have thought them to be dismissed. I’ve not followed as much what’s happened in Continental philosophy after Badiou so I can’t speak there. But in analytic philosophy it’s surprisingly still dominant even after a lot of the things that grounded it have disappeared.
----------------------------- 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 .
