A one word revision to my previous post:
On Dec 4, 2011, at 4:18 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
> ...
> Keeping in mind the various dimensions of experience, I took some pains
> to give an "even-handed" account of the tensions involved in integration:
>
>>> On the one hand I am much in favor of seeking deeper-lying continuities ...
>>>
>>> On the other hand I cannot help noticing the facts of usage.
>
> Still, I don't think we'll get very far with integrating the humanities
> and the sciences by setting up semiotics as just another isolated silo
> and ignoring the way terms of art are used in the other arts and sciences.
Dear John,
I agree, that for "semiotics" to be an effective unifying discipline it must
not isolate itself. Unfortunately, it's too late. By a series of missteps,
related cross-discipline confusions, and plain term usage, "semiotics" *is*
isolated.
The irony is that semeiotic theory is necessarily first among sciences. Yet its
current position is worse than last. If you surveyed most scientists today that
understand the discipline I suspect they would consider it irrelevant, many
more have never heard of it.
And I do not think the situation can be rescued. Any serious analysis of the
situation must, I think, draw this conclusion.
The right approach I have concluded is to drive a resurgence with renewed
interest in logic and its foundations, expanding the scope of the discipline to
encompass the concerns that rest within what we call "semeiotic theory." Logic
has a role that is better appreciated and can be driven toward a useful
expansion and a clarification by semeiotic theory.
This will seem to many here as the child usurping the parent but I see it as
the only way forward.
The first challenge in this regard is to undermine the common view that logic,
as computation (as conceived in "Computer Science"), is a "done deal." And we
may shake this view by producing significant practical results that demonstrate
the value of new and advanced general theories that elucidate both the
operation of biophysical systems and enable the construction of new
computational machinery.
If the case can be made that without a renewed effort in the foundations of
logic that further progress is hampered, then there is hope (for it is surely
semeiotic theory that can lead us out of the "dead end" we face in socially
critical science and engineering).
With respect,
Steven
PS. As an illustration of what I suggest, consider my abstract for "The
Incomputable" conference to be held in England next year, found here:
http://www.mathcomp.leeds.ac.uk/turing2012/inc/give-page.php?8
And indeed, this conference generally
(http://www.mathcomp.leeds.ac.uk/turing2012/inc/give-page.php?1) and the one
that I am organizing at Stanford University (http://challengingturing.org) are
examples of the way ahead. These are still very much "frontiers" events and
there are many miles to go before the broader consideration that these matters
require enter the mainstream.
--
Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
http://iase.info
http://senses.info
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L
listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to
lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the
message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
