Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:8831] Re: Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot

[Sungchul Ji]

Tom, lists,

I agree with your excellent interpretation of Mona Lisa. But, to me, that
is not all there is to Mona Lisa.  There may be much more to the painting.

There may be something unique (or local) about Mona Lisa that has not been
(and most likely will never be) reproduced by any other painters (e.g., her
smile) and something common (or global) to all paintings (e.g., pigment
molecules constituting the paints).

When you compare Mona Lisa's smile and pigment molecules, there is no
connection, an absolute disconnect, except the irrefutable fact that they
are parts of the same object, i.e., the painting itself.  This is an
example of what I mean when I say that  Mona Lisa is the complementary
union of *irreconcilable opposite*s, i.e., Lisa's smile (or aesthetics) vs.
pigment molecules (or physics/chemistry). To most viewers, the former is
all important and the latter is irrelevant or non-existent.  But to some
chemists interested in preserving or restoring the panting, for example,
the latter is of utmost importance.  Thus I am tempted to conclude that

"A complex object, e.g., Mona Lisa, has a complex history and can
 (082815-1)
be interpreted in complex ways, each having a unique pragmatic
value depending on the purpose of the interpreter."

"A complex object can be interpreted in more than one ways
(082815-2)
that are equally valid and meaningful."

I suggest that Statements (082815-1) and (082815-2) embody ITR
(irreversible triadic relation) as shown below:


   f g
Complex History --->  Mona Lisa --> Interpretant
(Complex *Object*)(Complex *Sign*)   (Complex
*interpretants*)
  |
  ^
  |
   |
  ||
h

Figure 1.  The semiotics of Mona Lisa.  f = the genesis of the painting; g
= interpretations of the painting; h =  information flow, correspondence,
or grounding.  (Please note that the term "object" is used in two different
ways in Figure 1 vs. in Statements (082815-1) and (082815-2)).

All the best.

Sung



On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Ozzie  wrote:

> Sung , List ~
> Well, the artist could evidently explain the effect of the painting.
> Instead of describing an abstract-formal logical process involving the
> properties of paint, why not refer to Leonardo's own development of the
> object-painting, which comprise its interpretants?  He planned the work,
> selected a model, made sketches, selected the paint (both for Mona and
> other paintings that used the same methods), and applied paint to canvas.
> The interpretants assigned by a philosopher without any pragmatic clues of
> the artist's does not seem like a way to explain the effect of Mona's
> smile.
>
> If instead we are modeling the logic of a typical viewer of Mona Lisa, the
> fact that his/her senses are deceived by the artist/painting suggests an
> outcome that somehow defies logic.  That's what the (cited) research
> demonstrates.  The art-lover philosopher might ask which
> objects+interpretants of the painting come into conflict within the viewer
> to produce that alogical impression.  Perhaps the viewer experiences
> (emotionally) both mother and father, or friend and foe, when looking at
> Mona's face.
>
> The physics and chemistry of paint seems beside the point.  The same
> paint, arranged differently, would not have created the same impression --
> say, as Picasso might have painted Mona. Or different paint might have had
> the same effect, in Leonardo's hands.  I believe that because historically
> the painting darkened, then was cleaned and re-varnished without Mona's
> smile gaining or losing appeal.
>
> IMO, the mind/hand of the artist and the eye/emotion of the beholder,
> working together, create Mona's unique smile.  Those are the interpretants
> of the mystery.
>
> Regards,
> Tom wyrick
>
>
>
> On Aug 27, 2015, at 11:18 AM, Sungchul Ji  wrote:
>
> Tom, lists,
>
> I accept the aesthetic interpretation of Mona Lisa you cited.  But to some
> researchers, Mona Lisa embodies more than aesthetics but embodies also
> chemistry and physics, because Mona Lisa is a COMPLEX object.  I think you
> may be referring to only one of the many aspects of a complex object.  I
> believe that a complex object is characterized by the impossibility of its
> being completely explained on the basis of a given perspective.
>
> All the best.
>
> Sung
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:49 PM, Ozzie  wrote:
>
>> Sung, List ~
>> According to some researchers, the specialness of Mona Lisa's smile comes
>> down to Leonardo's painting technique, which tricks the eye of the
>> observer.  Mona's smile looks special because it defies logic.   (See below
>> for a short excerpt.)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tom Wyrick
>>
>> "The portraits’ mouths seem to change their slant thanks to a technique
>

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:8831] Re: Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot

[Sungchul Ji]

Tom, lists,

I accept the aesthetic interpretation of Mona Lisa you cited.  But to some
researchers, Mona Lisa embodies more than aesthetics but embodies also
chemistry and physics, because Mona Lisa is a COMPLEX object.  I think you
may be referring to only one of the many aspects of a complex object.  I
believe that a complex object is characterized by the impossibility of its
being completely explained on the basis of a given perspective.

All the best.

Sung



On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:49 PM, Ozzie  wrote:

> Sung, List ~
> According to some researchers, the specialness of Mona Lisa's smile comes
> down to Leonardo's painting technique, which tricks the eye of the
> observer.  Mona's smile looks special because it defies logic.   (See below
> for a short excerpt.)
>
> Regards,
> Tom Wyrick
>
> "The portraits’ mouths seem to change their slant thanks to a technique
> called sfumato, which blends colors and shades to produce soft, gradual
> transitions between shapes, without any clear outlines When a viewer
> focuses on the subject’s eyes, the sfumato technique creates the illusion
> of the lips slanting upward. But when you look at her lips themselves, they
> seem somewhat pursed."
>
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2015/08/14/mona-lisa-smile/#.Vd524MQ8KrV
>
>
>
> On Aug 24, 2015, at 6:30 PM, Sungchul Ji  wrote:
>
> Hi Gary S, Gary R, lists,
>
> A thought just occurred to me that there may be a connection between the
> beauty of Mona Lisa (holism) and the various chemical pigments
> (reductionism) that constitute it -- namely, the organization of matter at
> two distinct scales, one at the macroscopic scale and the other at the
> microscopic.
>
> That is, what makes Mona Lisa beautiful is the way macroscopic pigment
> particles are ORGANIZED on its canvas, while what makes the pigment
> particles look colorful in Mona Lisa is the way microscopic particles known
> as atoms are ORGANIZED inside each pigment molecule.
>
> If this analysis is right, the concept of ORGANIZATION may be of
> fundamental significance at all physical scales and the consequence (or
> function or meaning) of organization may depend on the physical scales
> involved.  In the case of Mona Lisa, the pigment ORGANIZATION on the canvas
> results in beautiful visual sensations while the atomic ORGANIZATIONs in
> pigment molecules result in desirable colors of individual pigments.
>
> Hence, I am tempted to conclude that
>
> "Organization is the FUNCTOR connecting the beautiful aesthetics of Mona
> Lisa on the macrolevel and the colorful chemistry underlying it on the
> microlevel."
>
> All the best.
>
> Sung
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Sungchul Ji  wrote:
>
>> Hi Gary S, Gary R, lists,
>>
>> I agree that certain aspects (e.g., qualia) of  Peircean semiosis cannot
>> be reduced to mechanical terms, because life is more COMPLEX than physics
>> or chemistry. But I believe that no semiosis is possible without physics
>> and chemistry either, since, although the beauty of Mona Lisa is beyond the
>> chemical reductionism, no Mona Lisa can exist without colored dye molecules
>> having the right atomic organizations.  So the challenging question may be:
>>
>> "When does beauty begin and chemistry end in Mona Lisa?"
>>
>> One possible answer that comes to mind would be:
>>
>> "Mona Lisa is the complementary union of anesthetics and physics."
>>
>> All the best.
>>
>> Sung
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Gary Shank 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Is this in addition to your ongoing errors of trying to portray Peircean
>>> semiotics in reductionist and mechanical terms?
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Aug 24, 2015, at 6:00 PM, Sungchul Ji  wrote:
>>>
>>> Gary, list,
>>>
>>> There is a minor error in Slide 23:
>>>
>>>   R should be associated with quali, sin, and legi, and
>>>
>>>   O should be associated with  icon, index and symbol.
>>>
>>> All the best.
>>>
>>> Sung
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Gary Richmond 
>>> wrote:
>>>

  List,

 Cary Campbell of the Semiotic Research Group posted this summary of a
 lecture, "Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact" and
 gives a link to the accompanying ppt slideshow by Mihai Nadin (he
 inadvertently misspells his first name as 'Mihou') on that group's Facebook
 page.

 Many years ago I read a number of Nadin's papers and had a fascinating
 off-list discussion with him on his work, then focusing squarely on
 Peirce's semiotic theory and, as I recall, especially Peirce's
 understanding of virtuality. While Nadin has gone on to consider
 applications of semiotic theory to computer science, HCI, and other fields,
 it appears that his work continues to be 'grounded' in Peircean semiotics.

 Best,

 Gary



 Cary wrote:

 This is a super topical lecture from engineer/scientist/semiotician
 Mihou Nadin; quite insp