You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Semiotics’ category.

… since HUUUGE trees even break. Just like us, humans…

Anybody out there sporting a yellow CAUTION tape — after the fact???

.

The trunk:

.

and the lost branch:

.

chopped off from here – in contra-jour

.

photo credit: ES, July 1, 2014, near lake Ontario, Toronto side

click Crystal Dove img to expand



SINCEREST WISHES FOR:

  • good news
  • good friends
  • great mood… at least from time to time 🙂

during the Hoilday Season and the New 2014 Year

…to which I owe the links for Peirce’s terms synechism (conceptualization of {absolute} chance) and tychism (conceptualization of {universal} continuity) in my previous post. Peirce alternated the latter concept with agapism (cosmic love).

What’s really rewarding for the web-browsing eye/mind is that some of the papers presented at Club meetings/conferences are accessible through their website here. They have been able to attract “names” in semiotics/related fields of exploration.

As to the online dictionary of Peircean terms, I’d consider it a special strength that it comprises original Peirce quotes to illustrate each entry. Kudos to its editors, Mats Bergman & Sami Paavola and its contributors:

The COMMENS Dictionary of Peirce’s Terms. Peirce’s Terminology in His Own Words (If u want to contribute quotes: use the form)

Starting with the term “commens” itself as an especially apt name for the website:

“…that mind into which the minds of utterer and interpreter have to be fused in order that any communication should take place … may be called the commens. It consists of all that is, and must be, well understood between utterer and interpreter, at the outset, in order that the sign in question should fulfill its function.” (Charles S. Peirce, 1906, emphases by Ecosonance)

Let us revisit the Springer image below–I have an admission to make, and ideas to share.

At first I had mistaken the graph as representing Sign, Sign User, and Addressee as stemming from Object. That would have been the fallacy of privileging the “objective” object as the entity determining the rest of the terms. Apologies to Springer/their author.

Taking another careful look, I discovered the currently anonymous crossing point, to which all four terms are linked, and it occurred to me that it would thus qualify as a representation of the Ecosonance relationship. All terms link to a single point, thereby becoming linked among them. Another plus for the Springer graph is that it also leans toward a communicative view of the sign, as I do.

The compromise with straight lines still grates, but–synchronistically,–ES philosophy has found a possible visual illustration in semiosis. I certainly recognize the validity of having communicating persons as terms of the sign, in lieu of the respective meanings they generate, which I label “Meaning Intended” (by the utterer/sign user) and “Meaning Interpreted” (by the interpreter/addressee). On the whole, the graph above seems to match Charles Morris’s reinterpretation of Perceian semiotics, to which Dewey strongly objects–specifically, to representing Morris’s interpretation as based on Peirce’s, which it is not. Not to forget, the fact that the only meaning term of the Peircean sign is the Interpretant (i.e., the meaning in the mind of the interpreter) has backing in Peirce’s logico-philosophical semiotics. More on that coming up.

Calendar

February 2020
M T W T F S S
« Aug    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
242526272829  

Categories

© CreativeCommonsLicense

Creative Commons License Img

accurate quoting proper attribution by/on ES & of ES