Gary F, Paul, Robert, List, As did you, I read Deely's *Purely Objective Reality* many years ago and had to do some research and reviewing to recall the thrust of the argument for suprasubjectivity. As I understand it, Deely's concept of suprasubjectivity describes a reality that transcends both individual subjectivity and intersubjectivity. That is to say that it refers to a level of reality independent of both, but which yet can be interpreted by individuals and communities, perhaps especially scientific communities. This might make it a rather useful concept for biosemiotics. For example, ecosystems follow natural principles of ecology no matter how we individually or collectively experience, describe, or otherwise think about them (not, of course, that we can't have profound effects upon them, not infrequently, negative effects).
While Deely holds that suprasubjectivity is a domain of objective reality, he argues that what many think of as "purely objective reality" is a fiction. In addition, he emphasizes that the creatures of suprasubjectivty are *mediated *by signs, following Peirce's idea that the entire cosmos is so mediated, perhaps even comprised of signs. He argues that suprasubjective provides the foundation for shared meanings, that is for the intersubjectivity. For example, 'gravity' is a suprasubjective reality because it is a phenomenon which has effects whether there is, say, theoretical agreement now or at any given time as to its nature. Of course that sounds very much like Peirce's definition of 'the real' in the most general sense as that which is independent of what individuals or communities might think it is. As I see it *for science*, individual scientists can, at best, posit promising hypotheses, while communities of scientists can test these, while for Peirce the principle of fallibilism still holds for whatever the scientific findings, no matter how 'solid' they may appear to be. So the question remains, at least for me, how does suprasubjectivity differ from Peirce's definition of the objectively real which we can only asymptotically approach knowing through the scientific method? Best, Gary R On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 8:27 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 see Objecting 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.
