Auke - thanks for your post. A few comments.
1] I disagree that the analysis of Peirce is Either to focus on the
terminology OR - there is no analysis but the focus is for the use of
'the general public'.
The research that makes use, even without using Peircean terms, but
makes use of the basic analytic infrastructure - within the
informational sciences, within the biological sciences, within
cognitive and neurological research, within organic chemistry, within
economic dynamics, within linguistic development - is NOT part of the
'general public's focus'. It's scientific.
2] The use of the terms - or concepts - of the semiotic triad of
O-R-I [and subsets] and the dynamics of the three modal categories,
no matter how they are termed in the above research areas - is not
focused on 'which term is the correct term' - but on the CONCEPTS of
semiosis. Again -even if the researchers are not using semiotic
terms. They are using that analytic framework - and any work on our
part to expand the knowledge of the Peircean analytic framework -
provides, in my view, a powerful tool to deal with areas in the above
sciences. This expansion of use has nothing to do with terminology but
with the conceptual infrastructure of semiosis.
3] With regard to your use of Peircean semiotics - as you outline:
" I shifted from the production of objects made in arts to personal
development and from there to interactions. Resulting in the
application of a semiotically grounded method for conflict resolving
in an educational setting, "...[and] ..".how the sign aspects are
related to the interpretants, Peirce distinguishes, when a sign is
inscribed in a sheet in its actual state"
This is a pragmatic use of Peirce. Pragmatically using the Peircean
infrastructure means you CAN use his terms - or - you can use other
terms.
4] My point is that Peirce's vast work carried out over so many
years is NOT something that is focused on terminology, which would
confine it strictly to the elite seminar rooms, but is a powerful
analytic framework for examining and understanding the real objective
world.
Edwina
On Sat 30/03/19 11:43 AM , "Auke van Breemen" [email protected]
sent:
Dan, Edwina, List,
I agree with Dan and Edwina with an however in favor of work on the
semiotic engine and its make up in the technical terms that shy off
the general public.
Since I started analyzing design processes of artist in the late
80’íes I tried to combine an empirical bend with an interest of
modelling the situation graphically in technical semiotical terms.
The general scheme Dan and Edwina point to (and as I understand it in
my own undoubtedly very personal way, which itself evolves along the
way) functioning as the hard core of the research program. I shifted
from the production of objects made in arts to personal development
and from there to interactions. Resulting in the application of a
semiotically grounded method for conflict resolving in an educational
setting,
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-642-55355-4_3.pdf
[1] (it is of wider use, I extended the model and used it in a
commercial domain).
However: This I could only do because I always tried to model
semiosis in semiotic terms. And, because others on this list, and
elsewhere (Sarbo, Farkas), were trying to come to grips with the
technical side of semiotics.
For example, everybody reading the Springer Quality of service text
will see that I am inspired by Gary R’s Trikonic, which I class as
theoretical. Without that work I would never have imagined to try to
incorporate it in my application. It proved gold because it enables me
to have participants in my method explicate their position in such a
way that contestants in a conflict can compare their differences in a
systematic way. I leave out the valuable influence of many others on
this list.
It must be an interplay between both interests. It is also important
to try to model the process of interpretation in semiotic terms for
its own sake. The key to that in my take is showing how the sign
aspects are related to the interpretants, Peirce distinguishes, when
a sign is inscribed in a sheet in its actual state. In that respect
he left an interesting, still incomplete and as to its constituent
pieces debated puzzle.
But of course, in the end, it must be the fruit of application that
proves the worth of the tree.
Best Auke
Van: Dan Everett
Verzonden: zaterdag 30 maart 2019 14:55
Aan: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Onderwerp: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The pragmatics of Peirce
I agree with Edwina . Peirce himself left strong indications that
some of his finer terminological distinctions were likely to be
unimportant for research purposes, which was his main concern.
Always the point was to use his ideas to do empirical work.
The kind of article that Edwina links to is a beautiful example of
the kind of thing that would have really interested Peirce.
I think of Peircean terminology as a beanstalk he planted. It grew
far too large in many ways. But the science, the math, the logic,
these are the things of true lasting importance.
Dan
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 30, 2019, at 9:45 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
In my view, the basis of Peirce is not which term is to be used when
and where - although I acknowledge that such a descriptive outline can
be fascinating for some - but my view is that Peirce is really 'all
about pragmatics'; i.e., the powerful functionality of his analytic
framework when used in examining and explaining our real world, its
operation and our interactions with that world. This analytic
framework - which functions regardless of the terms used - is, to me,
'the basic Peirce' - and can be of great insight in many disciplines.
Here is an example. My minimal computer skills didn't allow me to
copy more than once - so, I've left out the vital title and authors.
It's in the online journal Entropy. The link below should get anyone
interested to the site. My point is NOT to open discussion on the
actual article - but to show how the Peircean analytic framework,
which to me, consists of that dynamic triad [O-R-I] with its subsets
and the powerful three categories - is the basic pragmatic
infrastructure of our entire world.
The article below is about information dynamics - and - note the
terms of 'majority-logic decoding' [another term for 3ns???], and
'single unit transformations' [2ns???]...and entropy [1ns??] ….And
non-equilibrium dynamics [the triadic semiosic process??]
""We investigate the performance of majority-logic decoding in both
reversible and finite-time information erasure processes performed on
macroscopic bits that contain N microscopic binary units. While we
show that for reversible erasure protocols single-unit
transformations are more efficient than majority-logic decoding, the
latter is found to offer several benefits for finite-time erasure
processes: Both the minimal erasure duration for a given erasure and
the minimal erasure error for a given erasure duration are reduced,
if compared to a single unit. Remarkably, the majority-logic decoding
is also more efficient in both the small-erasure error and
fast-erasure region. These benefits are also preserved under the
optimal erasure protocol that minimizes the dissipated heat. Our work
therefore shows that majority-logic decoding can lift the
precision-speed-efficiency trade-off in information erasure
processes. View Full-Text [3]
Keywords: finite-time information erasure; majority-logic decoding;
nonequilibrium thermodynamics finite-time information erasure [4] ;
majority-logic decoding [5]; nonequilibrium thermodynamics [6]
Edwina
-----------------------------
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] [7] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] [8] with the line "UNSubscribe
PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [9] .
Links:
------
[1]
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-642-55355-4_3.pdf
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3] https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/3/284/htm
[4] https://www.mdpi.com/search?q=finite-time%20information%20erasure
[5] https://www.mdpi.com/search?q=majority-logic%20decoding
[6] https://www.mdpi.com/search?q=nonequilibrium%20thermodynamics
[7]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[8]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[9] 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 .
