BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Cathy, list
I'll add that I am 100% in agreement with your desire to move
Peircean analysis outside of academia [As I call it, confined to the
seminar room] into the real world. But this movement can be very hard
for many to feel comfortable with!
I personally like to use Peircean analysis to examine the biological
realm, the economic and the societal.
Edwina
On Tue 15/06/21 1:28 PM , Synechism Center
synechismcen...@gmail.com sent:
Edwin, List,
Thank you, Edwina. You have clearly gone down this road before. Here
is an interesting video that touches on much of what I was trying to
decipher in our list posts today. From my perspective, I do see
Object-Representamen-Interpretant in the video's scenario. It's
important for me to find a way to bring Peircean understanding
outside of academia, and into real world dialogue.
https://youtu.be/GITVPh7GVSE [1]
Cathy
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 1:15 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Cathy, list
Thank you for the links. I'm aware of both authors, I have, myself,
even given conference papers on Bakhtin [one in Moscow, which showed
us the results of socialism] - but, the references to Peirce and
Bakhtin, as both stressing the importance of the dialogic interaction
and the role of the interpretant and thus, the role of dialogue, does
not, in my view, mean that Bakhtin's work is analogous to Peircean
semiosis.
It lacks the triadic nature of the Sign
[Object-Representamen-Interpretant] and lacks the categories. My view
is that these two factors are essential to an analysis being aligned
with Peircean semiosis.
Edwina
On Tue 15/06/21 12:59 PM , Synechism Center
synechismcen...@gmail.com [3] sent:
List,
In regard to Peirce, Bakhtin, and Otherness (Secondness), here are
two links to help further explore this topic.
Semiotics between Peirce and Bakhtin (semio2014.org) [4]
DEED, OTHERNESS AND LOVE IN BAKHTIN AND PEIRCE (iass-ais.org) [5]
Cathy T.
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 12:34 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
List
I have several comments
1] First, a question to Gary R and John Sowa: What is the
functionality of putting an area of study, such as Jappy's work,
into 'semeiotic' rather than 'phaneroscopy'? How does such a
categorization affect the results of the study?
2] With reference to Bakhtin, I wouldn't define him as a semiotician
but put him in the camp of semiology - and there's a huge difference
between the two.
3] I'd have a different interpretation of Cathy's example. Since the
semiotic interaction is dialogic, then, the sensation of the
categories and indeed, their 'mode of being' [8.328] rests within the
interaction. So, I don't understand how a frame and canvas is, in
itself, is a hypoicon of the Mona Lisa. I, as the receiver n this
semiotic dialogue, could only react to the reality of what is in
front of me: a frame and canvas.
My understanding of the hypoicon is that the received sensation, if
a duplicate of X, is an image. If it represents the parts of X, then
it is a diagram. If it is representative of X, then it is a metaphor.
But in all cases, X must exist. In the first case, X is a frame and
canvas; that is what my senses receive; there is no inherent
potentiality to 'be' the Mona Lisa.
My understanding is that pure Firstness is simply the sensation of X
- and whether it is a frame or picture is not relevant. After that
first sensation, the other categories move into their function; so,
an interpretant in the mode of 2-1 [rhematic indexical] might see a
diagram. And adding in the knowledge base of Thirdness, I could come
up with 3-1 and a rhematic symbol.
Edwina
On Tue 15/06/21 11:26 AM , Synechism Center
synechismcen...@gmail.com sent:
Gary R, List,
From your last post....
"CSP: But a sign may be iconic, that is, may represent its object
mainly by its similarity, no matter what its mode of being. If a
substantive be wanted, an iconic [sign] may be termed a hypoicon.
Any material image, as a painting, is largely conventional in its
mode of representation; but in itself, without legend or label it may
be called a hypoicon. (1903, CP 2.276)
The third and last quotation John offered suggests that according to
the trichotomic divisions of iconic signs, those 'hypoicons'
partaking of "simple qualities" (images, such as paintings) are signs
of "First Firstness;" while those representing (mainly) dyadic
relations can similarly be considered signs of what we may now
justifiably refer to as signs of 2nd firstness (diagrams); and
finally that those hypoicons "which represent the representative
character of a representamen by representing a parallelism in
something else" (metaphors) may be considered signs of 3rd firstness.
CSP: Hypoicons may roughly [be] divided according to the mode of
Firstness which they partake. Those which partake the simple
qualities, or First Firstnesses, are images; those which represent
the relations, mainly dyadic, or so regarded, of the parts of one
thing by analogous relations in their own parts, are diagrams; those
which represent the representative character of a representamen by
representing a parallelism in something else, are metaphors. (R478
62; EP2274, 1903)"
Please correct me if I am not understanding... I always try to
relate these topics to real life, as that is my intention with trying
to help a more general audience understand. ..... Imagine I am
standing in front of the Mona Lisa. The 'painting' (canvas and
frame), if absent of the image of the Mona Lisa, is a hypoicon . It
is a 'container', so to speak, a Firstness, and a potential placement
for 2nd firstness (that which the artist applies to the canvas), the
Mona Lisa becomes a metaphor when I gaze at it and in my mind it
represents a 16th century woman with knowing eyes. This activity that
my mind is now engaged in is 3rd firstness. It is the manifestation of
the original potentiality of First Firstness.
Semiotician Mikhail Bakhtin would expand on this idea of continued
interaction with the painting as dialogic.
Am I making sense?
Cathy T.
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 10:44 AM Gary Richmond wrote:
Jon, John, List
Jon, thank you for pointing out that Jappy's work, which John
referenced, is not about phaneroscopy but, rather, about semeiotic;
and, similarly, that the Peirce snippets John quoted also -- as I see
it, rather obviously -- concern semeiotic (specifically, semeiotic
grammar) and not phaneroscopy/ phenomenology. I'll comment only on
those three quotations here.
CSP: Now the Icon may undoubtedly be divided according to the
categories; but the mere completeness of the notion of the icon does
not imperatively call for any such division”(EP2 163, April 1903).
Now this quotation is of considerable interest for several reasons.
The entire short paragraph as it appears in EP2 reads:
CSP: Now the Icon may undoubtedly be divided according to the
categories but the mere completeness of the notion of the icon does
not imperatively call for any such division. For a pure icon does not
draw any distinction between itself and its object. It represents
whatever it may represent, and, whatever it is like, it in so far is.
It is an affair of suchness only.
The icon/index/symbol trichotomy is introduced in Peirce's semeiotic
grammar (along with two other trichotomies added somewhat later,
namely, the qualisign/sinsign/legisign and the
rheme/dicisign/argument).
What is of interest to me here is that an icon "represent[ing]
whatever it may represent, and, whatever it is like [and so being] an
affair of suchness only," that this simplest of semeiotic structures
in relation to the sign's object may, nonetheless, "undoubtedly be
divided according to the [3] categories" is, on the face of it, a
somewhat startling notion. So at some point in the slow read I'd like
to take this up. The crucial distinction may be -- and as Joe Ransdell
and I (and some others) discussed it on the List many years ago --
that between 'a pure icon' (does Peirce even regard a pure icon as
really possible?) and 'iconicity' as, perhaps, the second passage
John quoted suggests.
CSP: But a sign may be iconic, that is, may represent its object
mainly by its similarity, no matter what its mode of being. If a
substantive be wanted, an iconic [sign] may be termed a hypoicon.
Any material image, as a painting, is largely conventional in its
mode of representation; but in itself, without legend or label it may
be called a hypoicon. (1903, CP 2.276)
The third and last quotation John offered suggests that according to
the trichotomic divisions of iconic signs, those 'hypoicons'
partaking of "simple qualities" (images, such as paintings) are signs
of "First Firstness;" while those representing (mainly) dyadic
relations can similarly be considered signs of what we may now
justifiably refer to as signs of 2nd firstness (diagrams); and
finally that those hypoicons "which represent the representative
character of a representamen by representing a parallelism in
something else" (metaphors) may be considered signs of 3rd firstness.
CSP: Hypoicons may roughly [be] divided according to the mode of
Firstness which they partake. Those which partake the simple
qualities, or First Firstnesses, are images; those which represent
the relations, mainly dyadic, or so regarded, of the parts of one
thing by analogous relations in their own parts, are diagrams; those
which represent the representative character of a representamen by
representing a parallelism in something else, are metaphors. (R478
62; EP2274, 1903)
Whether or not one agrees with the details or the terminology or
even the whole of the above trichotomic analysis (which, again, I'd
rather postpone to much later in the slow read while, in fact, John
didn't place his post in a slow read thread), yet, these quotations
all refer to applications of the categories discovered in
phenomenology to another science, viz., semeiotic, specifically, to
the first branch of that science, semeiotic grammar.
This tendency to conflate the application of the phenomenological
categories -- and, perhaps, the application especially to semeiotic
-- with the categories themselves is, in my view, one of the
principal reasons why the slow read of De Tienne's slideshow
presentation of phaneroscopy/ phenomenology, seems timely and
important.
Best,
Gary R
“LET EVERYTHING HAPPEN TO YOU
BEAUTY AND TERROR
JUST KEEP GOING
NO FEELING IS FINAL”
― RAINER MARIA RILKE
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
[6]
Virus-free. www.avg.com
On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 8:26 PM Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
John, List:
I have corrected the subject line since the cited writings by Jappy
and quoted statements by Peirce are not about phaneroscopy at all,
but about speculative grammar as the first branch of the normative
science of logic as semeiotic. Jappy himself recognizes this in the
very first chapter of his book.
TJ: In his earlier writings, Peirce had made the categories, of
which there were five in the mid-1860s, dependent upon logic. By
1903, he had created a new science to deal with this part of the
system, which he called ‘phenomenology’* and which was now
independent of logic, presupposing only concepts provided by
mathematics. (p. 15) *Later to be titled ‘phaneroscopy’, which
studies the ‘phaneron’. (p. 190 n. 9)
TJ: For the moment, we note simply that the normative, as opposed to
the formal, mathematical aspect of logic – in other words, the
philosophy of representation – subdivides by the architectonic
principle into three branches, the first of which as we saw above,
being speculative grammar. This Peirce defines as the general theory
of the nature and meaning of signs and, since logic is a
classificatory science, speculative grammar determines, among other
things, whether a sign is an icon, an index or a symbol (CP 1.191,
1903). (p. 17)
Jappy's paper further clarifies that phenomenology/phaneroscopy
provides the framework for classifying signs in the 1903 taxonomy,
but that task itself clearly falls within speculative grammar. It is
important not to conflate the two by treating the latter as if it
were a branch of the former, since it also depends on esthetics and
ethics as Peirce clearly maintained.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [7]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [8]
On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 11:21 PM John F. Sowa wrote:
(For some mysterious reason, the content of my previous note
disappeared.}
As background reading material about phaneroscopy, I recommend some
important papers by Tony Jappy. Unlike many publications that talk
only about abstract issues, Tony J illustrates the abstract analysis
with specific examples of paintings and other images.
"Two Peircean approaches to the image: hypoiconicity and semiosis"
by Tony Jappy: https://www.academia.edu/40389448 [9]
For a book by Jappy with many more examples, see Peirce's 28 classes
of signs and the philosophy of representation,
https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/45654/625766.pdf
[10]
Jappy has published more articles on phaneroscopy and related
issues, but these two references are a good place to start.
John
_________________________________
Some quotations by Peirce, which Jappy discusses:
Now the Icon may undoubtedly be divided according to the categories;
but the mere completeness of the notion of the icon does not
imperatively call for any such division”(EP2 163, April 1903).
But a sign may be iconic, that is, may represent its object mainly
by its similarity, no matter what its mode of being. If a
substantive be wanted, an iconic [sign] may be termed a hypoicon.
Any material image, as a painting, is largely conventional in its
mode of representation; but in itself, without legend or label it may
be called a hypoicon. (1903, CP 2.276)
Hypoicons may roughly [be] divided according to the mode of
Firstness which they partake. Those which partake the simple
qualities, or First Firstnesses, are images; those which represent
the relations, mainly dyadic, or so regarded, of the parts of one
thing by analogous relations in their own parts, are diagrams; those
which represent the representative character of a representamen by
representing a parallelism in something else, are metaphors. (R478
62; EP2274, 1903) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of
the message and nothing in the body. More at
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html [11] .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary
Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of
the message and nothing in the body. More at
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html [12] .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary
Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
Links:
------
[1] https://youtu.be/GITVPh7GVSE
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'synechismcen...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4] https://semio2014.org/en/semiotics-between-peirce-and-bakhtin
[5] https://iass-ais.org/proceedings2014/view_lesson.php?id=75
[6]
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
[7] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[8] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[9] https://www.academia.edu/40389448
[10]
https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/45654/625766.pdf
[11] https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html
[12] https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the
body. More at https://list.iupui.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.
