Dear Edwina, As the years fly by, people evolve. Deely changed his mind about it. See “Physiosemiosis as an Influence of Signs,” *Chinese Semiotic Studies* 10, no. 3 (2014): 375–407, https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2014-0033. Most of all see “Why Life Presupposes Semiosis,” *Chinese Semiotic Studies* 12, no. 2 (2016): 159–75, https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2016-0017.
Dear Gary, First of all, if you want to have a private conversation with Paul Cobley, you should. If it is on the list, I am at liberty to jump in. Secondly: sorry, no, I would not need to do that. This conversation has gone beyond that and I took part as I saw fit. Thirdly, I have recommended a very fine book. You are welcome to read it if you so wish. Godspeed. Robert <[email protected]> escreveu (segunda, 13/01/2025 à(s) 18:12): > Robert, my post about John Deely’s work was merely a reply to Paul > Cobley’s post (and to yours) in this thread. If you can post a more precise > and comprehensive account of Deely’s views on anthroposemiosis, I’m sure > we’d all like to read it. If it’s in this thread, though, you would need to > explain how it relates to the topic of “intersubjective reality” and how > that relates to Peirce’s realist logic and metaphysics. > > > > Love, gary > > Coming from the ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg > > *From:* Robert Junqueira <[email protected]> > *Sent:* 13-Jan-25 10:58 > *To:* Everett, Daniel <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Intersubjective Reality > > > > Dear Garry F., > > if Deely defines anthroposemiosis not as 'human linguistic communication', > but as "the species-specifically human use of signs" — something > (anthroposemiosis) he considers to be "rooted in language" — then you were > not citing, but neither were you paraphrasing Dr. John Deely. A tree is > rooted in soil, but the tree and the soil are not the same. And, strictly > speaking, you should still demonstrate the relevance of rendering > "language" as "human linguistic communication". Depending on which stage of > Deely's life you are referring to, you may succeed or fail in doing so. In > any case, Deely wrote a lot after the *Four Ages*. There is even a short > work just to discuss anthroposemiotics (*Semiotic Animal: A Postmodern > Definition of “Human Being” Transcending Patriarchy and Feminism*). It is > worth reading and publicizing. As for Harari, I am already coming to be > fond of him... Although he is not a very exciting author in this particular > context, he has inspired us to engage in a dialog about authors of the > calibre of Deely and Sebeok. How wonderful! > > > > Dear DLE, > > thank you for recommending some of your writings, which I had not heard of > before. You seem a highly insightful gentleman, but unless proven otherwise > and on the basis of the information at hand, it is fair to suppose that you > have no clue whatsoever about either Deely or Sebeok's accounts. Should you > ever publish something about one or both of them, I will buy a copy for > myself and another to donate to the University of Coimbra. > > > > Yours sincerely, > > Robert Junqueira > > > > Everett, Daniel <[email protected]> escreveu (segunda, 13/01/2025 à(s) > 13:39): > > I discuss human language and semeiosis from quite a different perspective > than Deely, in both my book, How Language Began ( > https://www.amazon.com/How-Language-Began-Humanitys-Invention/dp/1631496263/ref=asc_df_1631496263?mcid=d1ecd920af553f30bef8ec0fc8b36ff1&hvocijid=6860026007277481217-1631496263-&hvexpln=73&tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=692875362841&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=6860026007277481217&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1027266&hvtargid=pla-2281435179098&psc=1) > and in a joint-authored article with archaeologist Larry Barham ( > https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10816-020-09480-9) > > > > The problem with Sebeok and Deely’s account is that they don’t really > control linguistic theory (of any source). > > > > DLE > > > > > > On Jan 13, 2025, at 08:26, [email protected] wrote: > > > > *[EXTERNAL]:* This email originated from outside of Bentley University. > Do not click on any links or open any attachments unless you recognize the > sender and know the content is safe. Please contact Bentley Help Desk with > any questions or concerns. > > Robert, list, > > John Deely defines “anthroposemiosis” as “the species-specifically human > use of signs, rooted in language” (*Four Ages of Understanding*, p. 629). > My expression was not a direct quote, or I would have cited the source as I > have here. > > Deely generally followed Thomas Sebeok in making an absolute distinction > between human language and the communication faculties of other animals, as > he explained in Chapter 9 of *Purely Objective Reality*. He also called *homo > sapiens* “the semiotic species”, because all animals *use* signs, but > only humans *know that there are signs*, and therefore only humans do > semiotics (i.e. talk about signs, as we are doing here). > > By the way, Paul Cobley mentioned Deely’s term “suprasubjectivity”, which > I didn’t find in Chapter 9 of the book, but it’s in Chapter 2 of *Purely > Objective Reality*. How that concept relates to what Yuval Harari calls > “intersubjectivity” is a metasemiotic question that I won’t go into here. > > Love, gary f. > > Coming from the ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg > > } Ecologically speaking, the trouble with the human race is that it's > getting too big for its niches. [gnox] { > > https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ Turning Signs <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/> > > > > *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> *On > Behalf Of *Robert Junqueira > *Sent:* 13-Jan-25 07:42 > *To:* [email protected]; [email protected] > *Cc:* Paul Cobley <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Intersubjective Reality > > > > Dear Garry F., > > Should you please let us know where John Deely defines anthroposemiosis as > "human linguistic communication", we would be most appreciative. > > > > Yours sincerely, > > Robert Junqueira > > > > <[email protected]> escreveu (domingo, 12/01/2025 à(s) 17:15): > > Paul, list, > > Thank you for that pointer to Deely’s *Purely Objective Reality*! Since I > read it over a decade ago, I’d forgotten all about it, but I dug up my copy > hoping to answer the immediate question on my mind: “intersubjectivity is > not enough” *for what?* Halfway through Deely’s chapter (page 151, > specifically) I realized that what he meant was this: Intersubjectivity is > not enough to account for *anthroposemiosis,* or human linguistic > communication. > > Deely’s reason for saying this is that “intersubjectivity,” for him, is a > relation between organisms, “something that exists in the world, beyond > (over and above) subjectivity, whether or not anybody is aware of its > existence; its reality is “hardcore”, not socially constructed” (p. 151). > But Harari’s definition and examples of intersubjectively created entities > show that for him they *are* socially constructed (mostly by “stories > people tell one another”). > > What’s behind this discrepancy is that Deely, like Peirce and unlike > Harari, generally uses the term “subject” as it was used in the Latin age > of philosophy, and avoids the more Kantian sense of “subjectivity.” (See > Peirce’s *Century Dictionary* entry on “objective”, which is reproduced > in *Turning Signs* at https://gnusystems.ca/TS/rlb.htm#bjctv. On Peirce’s > usage seeObjecting and Realizing (TS ·12) > <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/blr.htm#x08>.) > > So I don’t think Deely’s chapter really answers the question posed by Gary > R. I’d like to rephrase it as follows: would Peirce recognize some entities > as *socially constructed* *realities*? I think I could supply a number of > Peirce quotes that show him doing that, but I’d rather hear what others > think on the question first. > > Love, gary f. > > Coming from the ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg > > > > *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> *On > Behalf Of *Paul Cobley > *Sent:* 12-Jan-25 06:01 > *To:* Gary Richmond <[email protected]>; [email protected] > *Cc:* Gary Fuhrman <[email protected]>; Benjamin Udell <[email protected] > > > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Intersubjective Reality > > > > Gary R, list, > > > > Thanks for introducing discussion of this very interesting topic. > > > > One would expect Harari, bearing in mind his main audience, to rely on a > concept such as intersubjectivity. > > > > But, in answer to your question ‘Is Harari’s concept of “intersubjective > reality” compatible with Peircean realism?’, the most direct and extensive > discussion of this issue that I have come across was offered by John Deely > nearly 23 years ago. > > > > John’s conclusions can be found in Chapter 9 of his 2009 book, *Purely > Objective Reality* (Berlin: de Gruyter). The chapter, aptly, carries the > title of the original 2002 lecture: ‘Why intersubjectivity is not enough’. > > > > There he outlines the concept of suprasubjectivity to explicate what he > sees as compatible with Peircean realism. > > > > Best, > > > > Paul > > > > *From: *[email protected] <[email protected]> on > behalf of Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > *Date: *Saturday, 11 January 2025 at 21:22 > *To: *[email protected] <[email protected]> > *Cc: *Gary Fuhrman <[email protected]>, Benjamin Udell <[email protected] > > > *Subject: *[PEIRCE-L] Intersubjective Reality > > List, > > > > Gary Fuhrman, whom I sometimes think of as a philosopher of the > Anthropocene, in the course of revising a section of his online book, *Turning > Signs *[https://gnusystems.ca/TS/], forwarded a link to that section to > see what I thought of his revision (I've read *TS* online and in its > print version, and have discussed *TS* often with Fuhrman off List and in > his blog). > > > > In the section [linked to below] he remarks that Yuval Noah Harari posits, > in addition to the *objective reality* and *subjective reality* we > Peirceans are all fairly familiar with, an *intersubjective reality*. > Fuhrman later sent me a longer quote which, I think, helps clarify exactly > what Harari means by "intersubjective reality" (I'll give the shorter quote > in the context of Fuhrman's comments on it a bit later) in this post. > > "The two levels of reality that preceded storytelling are objective > reality and subjective reality. Objective reality consists of things like > stones, mountains, and asteroids—things that exist whether we are aware of > them or not. An asteroid hurtling toward planet Earth, for example, exists > even if nobody knows it’s out there. Then there is subjective reality: > things like pain, pleasure, and love that aren’t “out there” but rather “in > here.” Subjective things exist in our awareness of them. An unfelt ache is > an oxymoron. > > > > "But some stories are able to create a third level of reality: > intersubjective reality. Whereas subjective things like pain exist in a > single mind, intersubjective things like laws, gods, nations, corporations, > and currencies exist in the nexus between large numbers of minds. More > specifically, they exist in the stories people tell one another. The > information humans exchange about intersubjective things doesn’t represent > anything that had already existed prior to the exchange of information; > rather, the exchange of information creates these things."—Harari, Yuval > Noah. Nexus (p. 25). McClelland & Stewart. Kindle Edition. > > > > I think that Peirce, should he have accepted the concept, might include > these intersubjective realities with other symbols inhabiting his *Third > Universe of Experience*. In the quotation below I've put those that might > be examples of intersubjective realities in boldface. > > > > The third Universe comprises everything whose being consists in active > power to establish connections between different objects, especially > between objects in different Universes. Such is everything which is > essentially a Sign -- not the mere body of the Sign, which is not > essentially such, but, so to speak, the Sign's Soul, which has its Being in > its power of serving as intermediary between its Object and a Mind. Such, > too, is a living consciousness, and such the life, the power of growth, of > a plant. *Such is a living constitution -- a daily newspaper, a great > fortune, a social "movement."* CP 6.455 > > > In *Turning Signs* Fuhrman puts these in the context of language, > communication, information, community, relations and, perhaps especially, > dialogue -- but *not* truth. See: https://gnusystems.ca/TS/dlg.htm#ntrsbj > Here, Fuhrman comments, then quotes Harari: > > > > Humans are social animals who have used language for millennia to > cooperate with others. Without it, and without the information networks > which enable communication at ever larger scales, they could not have > attained the dominance over life on Earth that we now call the > Anthropocene <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene>. Some > information networks enable humans to learn the *truth* about what they > call “objective” reality, which is what it is regardless of what anyone > thinks about it. But every sentient being has to sense its reality on its > own, separately and “subjectively.” Consequently, both communication and > power relations within the community depend on *intersubjective* realities > <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/gld.htm#ntrsb>, as Yuval Harari calls them in > *Nexus* (2024, 25): ‘they exist in the stories people tell one another.’ > Not all these stories reflect “objective” reality, but they can be ‘real > powers in the world’ (Peirce <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/sdg.htm#hsabstr>), > and some information networks propagate them in order to maintain or modify > a social *order*. The objects referred to by many symbols are among the > intersubjective realities which people may naively confuse with “objective” > *truth*. > > "Contrary to what the naive view of information says, information has no > essential link to truth, and its role in history isn’t to represent a > preexisting reality. Rather, what information does is to create *new* > realities > by tying together disparate things— whether couples or empires. Its > defining feature is connection rather than representation, and information > is whatever connects different points into a network. Information doesn’t > necessarily inform us about things. Rather, it puts things in formation." > (Harari 2024, 12) > > One question immediately comes to mind: Is Harari’s concept of > “intersubjective reality” compatible with Peircean realism? I’d be > interested in hearing list members' thoughts on this question. > > > > Best, > > > > Gary R > > > > PS My first attempt at sending this email failed as the default address is > the old iupui one, so was undeliverable. Ben,, is there any way to make the > new iu address the default address? > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at > https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at > https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the > links! > ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] > . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with > UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the > body. More at https://list.iu.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. > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at > https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at > https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the > links! > ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] > . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with > UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the > body. More at https://list.iu.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. > > > >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iu.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.
