Dear colleagues, I have had hundreds of discussions with my students and colleagues, I have conducted master's thesis in several fields and Phd like any academic. Obviously most of them have exploited in their classifications the texts CP 2.254 to 2,265 formalized by me in the lattice of the classes of signs (see https://www.academia.edu/40493861/The_trichotomic_machine_brings_order_among_the_interpretants proposed for discussion in this list and immediately drowned in subjects not always adjacent). These analytical practices have shown that the main or even unique cause of the observed discrepancies is due to the fact that when each classifies a sign it places it somewhere in the lattice but at the same time its class of signs presupposes structurally (or implies if you prefer) all classes of signs that are "below". It often happens that we see a denial of an analysis by other analyses that classify the sign precisely in a class below. This is evident in debates about the relationship to the object with photographs: icons, indexes or symbols is the question. My German colleague Max Bense had created the "top icon" that captured the formation of icons in the sense that it is heard in the media today (the current best example is Greta Thunberg). One can even observe the three classifications in a debate and a fine analysis with the categories is necessary to obtain -not always - a consensus, which can only be obtained with a rigorous examination of the "ground" of the sign, that is to say on the characters of the signs that are really active in the communication, that is to say selected by a perceptual judgment shared by the community to which it is addressed. The signs of advertising allow a large amount of endless analysis and debate
Le mer. 22 avr. 2020 à 19:35, John F. Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> a écrit : > Edwina, > > That's an important point: > > ET > I agree with Gary's comments - however, specifically, I don't see > that the 'minute semiotic analysis' is even a semiotic analysis; it's a > terminological analysis. Semiosis is a dynamic process and a focus on terms > ignores this actuality. > > The great tragedy of Peirce's career is his lack of daily discussions with > students and colleagues during the last three decades of his life. A > discussion of semiosis requires a huge number of examples to illustrate the > open-ended variety of possibilities. If he had daily discussions with > students, they would have bombarded him with a constant stream of new > examples. > > Instead of constantly quoting and requoting passages, it would be much > better to take specific examples that have been used in 20th & 21st c > discussions and show how Peirce's categories could be used to clarify them. > > A great advantage of that approach is that it would show modern linguists, > psychologists, logicians, and philosophers the importance of studying > Peirce's writings. > > John >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
