Gary F, list, That was slightly opaque, but, yes, exactly that - of the language/language-using "bodymind" being united within the process of semiosis (the unity/binding of substances in/through language more generally).
Thanks Jack ________________________________ From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu <peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu> on behalf of g...@gnusystems.ca <g...@gnusystems.ca> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 12:33 PM To: 'Peirce-L' <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] RE: A key principle of normative semeiotic for interpreting texts Jack, I’m not sure what you mean by “consubstantiality” — maybe the language and the language-using bodymind being of the same substance, or the same kind of agency? Peirce does seem to assert that, and I’ve applied the idea in my book, but I don’t know that it’s scientifically testable. When I said that the object was the “key constituent of the commens”, I meant that it’s the one on which attention is focussed consciously. The shared language has to be functioning implicitly. We don’t think about the the grammatical principles which govern what we say while we are saying it. But I guess that was an infelicitous way of expressing the idea. Gary f. From: JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY <jack.cody.2...@mumail.ie> Sent: 28-Oct-21 13:42 To: 'Peirce-L' <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>; g...@gnusystems.ca Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: [PEIRCE-L] A key principle of normative semeiotic for interpreting texts Gary F, List, Hi Gary, I'm not sure what prompted the current topic, but I think that when discussing dialogism and Peirce we come closest to the most pragmatic frame of reference which it is possible to establish within a Peircean framework. GF: It is therefore the object, and not the shared language, that is the key constituent of the commens, “that mind into which the minds of utterer and interpreter have to be fused in order that any communication should take place.” Whilst I agree with this quite broadly, I would just like to prod you a little. My own reading suggests that it is a mixture of the two (a basically dialectical relationship between shared language and Object) which is the "key constituent of the commens". That is, imagine the Saussurean langue for a moment and take it as unideal - as asymmetrical. If our means of decoding a "shared" language vary according to unique, though overlapping, contextual conditions (collateral experience) which surround the acquisition of language, then there is scope within Saussure's framework for the role of a Peircean object. I wonder, also, what your thoughts are regarding consubstantiality -- of language as volitional movement which seeks to index objective relations which are never, or quite rarely, contained within language itself? Interesting topic which dovetails nicely with some of my own research right now. Best Jack
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
