Clark - thanks for your comments.
The biosemiotics people [and I'm part of that group] are indeed
focused on pragmatics, which is not, I think, quite the same as
'practical applications'. And there's interest in the Peircean
semiosis in the chemico-physical realm and in AI, artificial
intelligence. The focus is, as I said, on how 'matter' comes into
existence as a Form; how it incorporates continuity in type and also,
enables adaptability and novelty of instantiations. These issues are
all found, quite detailed and clear, within the Peircean texts. The
Peircean framework moves out of the linguistic realm, and out of the
zone of the human mind, and into the natural world. That, to me, is
its strength.
I don't see the point of outlining my research on this list - as I'd
get reactions of 'Peirce didn't say that!' and 'That's
Taborsky-semiotics and it's not Pure Peirce!...
Yes, Peirce did give up on words since their meanings can differ
among different groups and over time. But, again, to focus on words
and ignore the real operational function of the Peircean framework -
well, to me at least, it seems irrelevant, but I know that for the
'philosophy guys' here, it seems to give them great delight to deal
with those semantics.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca
On Thu 30/03/17 10:03 AM , Clark Goble [email protected] sent:
On Mar 30, 2017, at 6:30 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
But a thing that bothers me about some of the focus of this list is
its isolation from reality; that is, it's all about words and
definitions. But Peirce wasn't focused on that. As John points out,
he used his terms in a variety of ways; - and his focus was on the
pragmatism of semiosis. That is - what is the pragmatic function of
Peircean semiosis?I think the biosemiotic people were focused on
practical applications. There are of course lots of semiotic analysis
of various sorts of communications out there although this list has
never focused on that too much.
But while my own interests are primarily philosophical I’m
certainly open to any topic people would like to start. Why not tell
us some of your own research?
To the definition point, I think especially with philosophical
concerns we’re grasping after subtle differences. Often we use the
same words to mean different things. That’s especially true when
the differences in question (like say the nominalist vs. realist one)
have metaphysical implications but only subtle practical differences.
That makes language a bit tricky. That’s a large reason why Peirce
himself tended, especially in his later periods, to coin neologisms.
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
