Edwina,
Since we are in metatalk about semiotics and its importance I take your comments as refinements and not as criticism. As are mine remarks between your lines. 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. RE: I agree. I didn’t mean it exclusively. My remark is motivated by the struggle I had to go through before I at long last found a way to get the general scheme to the public. As a matter of fact I did also profit from far less by technical semiotic terms steered research because it followed the basic analytic infrastructure. 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. Re: of course, but one pins down an conceptual infrastructure with the help of ‘terms and their relationship’. 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. RE: see my response to 1] 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. RE: And again. But of course. However I like to be able to inspect that framework as to its build and for that I find the technical term distinctions that Peirce made very inspiring. On top of that. Peirce started with similarities in his earliest work and throughout his career he added layer after layer, coining terms in high frequency. The focus is on the understanding of semiosis, the tools are the technical terms. Its good to keep inspecting and comparing ones tools. Best, Auke Edwina On Sat 30/03/19 11:43 AM , "Auke van Breemen" a.bree...@chello.nl <mailto:a.bree...@chello.nl> 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 (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: tabor...@primus.ca <mailto:tabor...@primus.ca> CC: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> 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 < <javascript:top.opencompose('tabor...@primus.ca','','','')> tabor...@primus.ca> 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. <https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/3/284/htm> View Full-Text Keywords: finite-time information erasure; majority-logic decoding; nonequilibrium thermodynamics <https://www.mdpi.com/search?q=finite-time%20information%20erasure> finite-time information erasure ; <https://www.mdpi.com/search?q=majority-logic%20decoding> majority-logic decoding; <https://www.mdpi.com/search?q=nonequilibrium%20thermodynamics> nonequilibrium thermodynamics 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 <javascript:top.opencompose('peirce-L@list.iupui.edu','','','')> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to <javascript:top.opencompose('l...@list.iupui.edu','','','')> l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at <http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm> 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
