[PEIRCE-L] CFP: 2nd International Conference Semiosis in Communication: Differences and Similarities

[Gary Richmond]

​CFP: 2nd Intern​
ational Conference Semiosis in Communication: Differences and Similarities
Home  / Congress & Call for Papers
 / CFP: 2nd
International Conference Semiosis in Communication: Differences and
Similarities

CFP: 2nd International Conference Semiosis in Communication: Differences
and Similarities

*INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE*

*SEMIOSIS IN COMMUNICATION*

*Differences and Similarities*

Bucharest, 14-16 June, 2018

http://centrucomunicare.ro/semiosis/semiosisc_2018.html

*Conference description*

The second edition of the International Conference *Semiosis in
Communication: Differences and Similarities*will be organized by the
National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, Romania
(NUPSPA) in participation with Southeast European Center for Semiotic
Studies (SEECSS) at New Bulgarian University (NBU), Sofia, Bulgaria, and
under the auspices of the International Association for Semiotic Studies
(IASS-AIS). It will be held in Bucharest, Romania, from the 14th to the 16th of
June, 2018.

This conference explores the role of semiosis in communication. As such,
the conference offers an insight towards the epistemological relations
between semiotics and other approaches to communication coming from
perspectives such as sociology, philosophy of language and communication
theory.

Objects of interdisciplinary knowledge par excellence, semiotics and
communication are complementary ways of world mastery, of the *big game*,
just like Solomon Marcus (2011) would say. In a world of global
communication, where each one’s life depends increasingly on signs,
language and communication, understanding how we relate and opening
ourselves to otherness, to differences in all their forms and aspects is
becoming more and more relevant. From this perspective, an important
objective of the International Conference *Semiosis in Communication:
Differences and Similarities* is to emphasize the importance of semiotic
queries in the communication sciences.

The conference proceeds in three panels (sessions), each focused on a
theme. In addition, Professors *Susan Petrilli* and *Augusto Ponzio* will
hold a special session as honorary guests. In accordance with the paper
proposals, the preliminary list of suggested sessions will be updated.

*1. Semiotics and communication*

This panel approaches directly the act or phenomenon of communication in
the light of semiotic theory. Its purpose is to develop the premises for a
semiotic theory of communication. While communication was explored
thoroughly in the light of other disciplines, and, as such, understood
within the perspective of sociology, psychology, cognitive sciences,
cultural studies or philosophy of language, semiotics accounts for
communication as an act of signification. As such, communication is not
accounted for as necessarily dependent on categories such as social
interaction, cognitive abilities or cultural background, but as purely a
phenomenon of signification. This is the most theoretically general and
open panel.

*Panel head(s): *Dumitru Borțun, National University of Political Studies
and Public Administration, Romania; Nicolae-Sorin Drăgan, National
University of Political Studies and Public Administration, Romania.

*2. Differences and Similarities. Alterity as the Basis of Communication*

This panel explores the question of understanding the alterity from a
semiotic perspective. Objects of interdisciplinary knowledge *par
excellence*, semiotics and communication are complementary ways of world
mastery, of the *big game*, just like Solomon Marcus (2011) would say. In a
world of global communication, where each one’s life depends increasingly
on signs, language and communication, understanding how we relate and
opening ourselves to otherness, to differences in all their forms and
aspects is becoming more and more relevant. The papers presented in this
panel will capture and investigate integrative aspect of semiotics, its
ability to subtly and discreetly unite ideas, people and things, in a word
*differences*.

*Panel head: *Will be announced soon.

*3. Why Europe? Narratives and Counter-narratives of European Integration*

Special Panel organized by the ECREA Temporary Working Group “Communication
and the European Public Sphere”

Pressured by what appears as a never-ending crisis, the European Union has
to face multiple internal fractures and external pressures. Populism,
nationalism and right-wing extremism are seeing resurgence in a number of
states across Europe, with consequences on the decision-making process in
the European Union. As it became a very familiar narrative in recent years,
this phenomenon creates severe discontinuities from the previous EU
communication paradigm. The dangers associated with extremism and populism
in the political discourse is that in order to meet the increasingly
Eurosceptic public opinion, many political leaders artificia

[PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.4

[gnox]

Continuing from Lowell 2.3,

https://www.fromthepage.com/jeffdown1/c-s-peirce-manuscripts/ms-455-456-1903
-lowell-lecture-ii/display/13602:

 

The most immediately useful information is that which is conveyed in
conditional propositions, "If you find that this is true, then you may know
that that is true." Now in ordinary language the conditional form is
employed to express a variety of relations between one possibility and
another. Very frequently when we say "If A is true, then B is true," we have
in mind a whole range of possibilities, and we assert that among all
possible cases, every one of those in which A is true will turn out to be a
case in which B is true also. But in order to obtain a way of expressing
that sort of conditional proposition, we must begin by getting a way of
expressing a simpler kind, which does not often occur in ordinary speech but
which has great importance in logic. The sort of conditional proposition I
mean is one in which no range of possibilities is contemplated, which speaks
only of the actual state of things. "If A is true then B is true," in this
sense is called a conditional proposition de inesse. In case A is not true,
it makes no assertion at all and therefore involves no falsity. And since
every proposition is either true or false, if the antecedent, A, is not
true, the conditional de inesse is true, no matter how it may be with B. In
case the consequent, B, is true, all that the conditional de inesse asserts
is true, and therefore it is true, no matter how it may be with A. If
however the antecedent, A, is true, while the consequent, B, is false, then,
and then only is the conditional proposition de inesse false. This sort of
conditional says nothing at all about any real connection between antecedent
and consequent; but limits itself to saying "If you should find that A is
true, then you may know that B is true," never mind the why or wherefore. 

 

http://gnusystems.ca/Lowell2.htm }{ Peirce's Lowell Lectures of 1903

https://fromthepage.com/jeffdown1/c-s-peirce-manuscripts/ms-455-456-1903-low
ell-lecture-ii

 


-
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 .

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories

[Helmut Raulien]

Edwina,

thank you for acknowledging a different view! I have looked at Guess at the riddle, not having understood it, so I must look again, taking more time, being more focused and concentrated.

Is it so, that "degenerate" mostly applies to classification, e.g. the sign classes? While, when it is about composition, it rather is submodes?


About external and internal, regarding the example of the immediate object being internal, and the dynamical one being external to the sign, I yesterday have written something in my blog www.signs-in-time.de . There (quite at the end of it) I have come to the conclusion, that there are more than one ways of something being a part of something else: Three ways of composition. The dynamical object is functionally a part of the sign (functional composition), but spatially not a part of it (external to it, spatial composition).

Best,

Helmut


18. Oktober 2017 um 14:36 Uhr
 "Edwina Taborsky" 
wrote.


Helmut - yes, Again, Peirce refers to external and internal frequently  - see for example, all through A guess at the riddle.  1. 354-

Yes, I can see the degenerate modes as submodes - except what is interesting about them is that they include the other modes, which thus makes them degenerate rather than genuine/pure.

I hope I've explained why I describe 3-1 and 3-2 differently from you - though I acknowledge the validity of your points.

Edwina

 

On Tue 17/10/17 9:31 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:



 
 

Supplement: "External, internal" are a bit likely to lead to misunderstandings, I guess. I think, or rather guess, that, as secondness is actuality and firstness possibility, this also applies to the degenerate modes (I rather think of them as submodes). So, that (3.1.) is possibility rather, and (3.2.) actuality.



 

Edwina, list,

my concepts of (2.1.), (2.2.), (3.1.), (3.2.), (3.3.) I mostly have abducted from immediate object (2.1.), dynamic object (2.2.), immediate (3.1.), dynamic (3.2.), final (3.3.) interpretant, and also the parts of the consciousness: Sensation of altersense (2.1.), will of altersense (2.2.), abstraction of medisense (3.1.), suggestion of medisense (3.2.), association of medisense (3.3.). Looking at these, I think that I agree with your (2.1.) and (2.2.), but that I see (3.1.) and (3.2.) the other way around than you do, regarding their local ex- and internality. Are there btw. any more examples of degenerate modes by Peirce?

Best,

Helmut


 17. Oktober 2017 um 21:59 Uhr
 "Edwina Taborsky" wrote:
 


Helmut - I can see how you are arriving at this outline of the categories - matter-form-interaction - and they DO fit into the three modal categories.  My own view of the six modes possible within these three categories analyzes how they function within time and space.

1-1 [Pure Firstness]- is a mode of existence in Internal Local Space and Present time: As internal, which is to say, in the non-actualized or imaginary realm - - it provides a host of 'possible' experiences but its existentiality as not-actual is without definition and without form and thus, allows for a great deal of interpretation, via its open possibilities. A feeling.

2-2 [Pure Secondness] is a mode in External Local Space and Perfect time: As external, it provides a discrete actual instantiation

2-1 [Degenerate Secondness] is a borderline interface, in local space..and on the border between the external and the internal. It's an 'attractor'. I think it functions as a kind of initial condition [its Firstness] , able to link with other relations [its indexical Secondness]; It acts as a catalyst...with its properties of both internal feeling and external closure. So, it iconically and indexically  'interacts' with other sites and also, binds and links with them.

3-2 [Degenerate Thirdness] is an internal mode, and, as Thirdness, operates in progressive or continuous time and non-local space. As non-local, it  provides communal continuity, but, as internal, it operates as a 'virtual information processor. It functions as an exploratory ongoing flexible connection of indexical links to both real and imaginary solutions; it 'browses' the entire informational community without making a discrete decision. It's a vital, highly important mode - because of its indexicality with its surroundings, and the fact that, as internal - its decisions remain possible rather than actual. This enables the organism to consider, without actualizing,  multiple alternative solutions. It's a  vital informational search engine.

3-1 [Degenerate Thirdness] is an external mode, and, as Thirdness, operates in progressive or continuous time and non-local space. It provides communal continuity, but, as EXTERNAL, i.e., as actual rather than imaginary or possible, it lacks the exploratory capacities of 3-2; it provides a symmetry-inducing model, a communal habit-form or abstract model, which guides and organizes the development of instantiations. Akin to the genes of a species.

3-3 [Pure Th

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories

[Edwina Taborsky]

 
 Helmut - my understanding of 'degenerate' is simply that the mode
includes another mode. So, genuine Secondness refers to a mode of
organization or composition that functions only within Secondness.
Degenerate Secondness includes Firstness in that composition.

One can 'theoretically, I suppose, refer to 2-1 as a 'submode' of
2-2, but I understand it as I've explained above.

Yes, there are indeed 'more than one way' of something being a
functioning part of something else.

You wrote: 'The dynamical object is functionally a part of the sign
(functional composition), but spatially not a part of it (external to
it, spatial composition)." I

I agree. That is in large part why Peirce referred to his theory as
'objective idealism'. 

Edwiina
 On Mon 23/10/17  3:09 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
  Edwina, thank you for acknowledging a different view! I have looked
at Guess at the riddle, not having understood it, so I must look
again, taking more time, being more focused and concentrated. Is it
so, that "degenerate" mostly applies to classification, e.g. the sign
classes? While, when it is about composition, it rather is submodes? 
About external and internal, regarding the example of the immediate
object being internal, and the dynamical one being external to the
sign, I yesterday have written something in my blog
www.signs-in-time.de . There (quite at the end of it) I have come to
the conclusion, that there are more than one ways of something being
a part of something else: Three ways of composition. The dynamical
object is functionally a part of the sign (functional composition),
but spatially not a part of it (external to it, spatial composition).
Best, Helmut  18. Oktober 2017 um 14:36 Uhr
  "Edwina Taborsky" 
 wrote.  

Helmut - yes, Again, Peirce refers to external and internal
frequently  - see for example, all through A guess at the riddle.  1.
354- 

Yes, I can see the degenerate modes as submodes - except what is
interesting about them is that they include the other modes, which
thus makes them degenerate rather than genuine/pure. 

I hope I've explained why I describe 3-1 and 3-2 differently from
you - though I acknowledge the validity of your points. 

Edwina
 On Tue 17/10/17 9:31 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:   
Supplement: "External, internal" are a bit likely to lead to
misunderstandings, I guess. I think, or rather guess, that, as
secondness is actuality and firstness possibility, this also applies
to the degenerate modes (I rather think of them as submodes). So,
that (3.1.) is possibility rather, and (3.2.) actuality.  Edwina,
list, my concepts of (2.1.), (2.2.), (3.1.), (3.2.), (3.3.) I mostly
have abducted from immediate object (2.1.), dynamic object (2.2.),
immediate (3.1.), dynamic (3.2.), final (3.3.) interpretant, and also
the parts of the consciousness: Sensation of altersense (2.1.), will
of altersense (2.2.), abstraction of medisense (3.1.), suggestion of
medisense (3.2.), association of medisense (3.3.). Looking at these,
I think that I agree with your (2.1.) and (2.2.), but that I see
(3.1.) and (3.2.) the other way around than you do, regarding their
local ex- and internality. Are there btw. any more examples of
degenerate modes by Peirce? Best, Helmut   17. Oktober 2017 um 21:59
Uhr
  "Edwina Taborsky" wrote:
Helmut - I can see how you are arriving at this outline of the
categories - matter-form-interaction - and they DO fit into the three
modal categories.  My own view of the six modes possible within these
three categories analyzes how they function within time and space. 

1-1 [Pure Firstness]- is a mode of existence in Internal Local Space
and Present time: As internal, which is to say, in the non-actualized
or imaginary realm - - it provides a host of 'possible' experiences
but its existentiality as not-actual is without definition and
without form and thus, allows for a great deal of interpretation, via
its open possibilities. A feeling. 

2-2 [Pure Secondness] is a mode in External Local Space and Perfect
time: As external, it provides a discrete actual instantiation 

2-1 [Degenerate Secondness] is a borderline interface, in local
space..and on the border between the external and the internal. It's
an 'attractor'. I think it functions as a kind of initial condition
[its Firstness] , able to link with other relations [its indexical
Secondness]; It acts as a catalyst...with its properties of both
internal feeling and external closure. So, it iconically and
indexically  'interacts' with other sites and also, binds and links
with them. 

3-2 [Degenerate Thirdness] is an internal mode, and, as Thirdness,
operates in progressive or continuous time and non-local space. As
non-local, it  provides communal continuity, but, as internal, it
operates as a 'virtual information processor. It functions as an
exploratory ongoing flexible co

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.4

[Jerry Rhee]

Gary f, list:



Thank you for that posting.



I must assert though,



I am surprised that if A is true, B is true,

for I thought: if A were true, C would be a matter of course.



Does B and not C surprise you?



http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/bycsp/L75/ver1/l75v1-04.htm



Best,
Jerry Rhee

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 9:36 AM,  wrote:

> Continuing from Lowell 2.3,
>
> https://www.fromthepage.com/jeffdown1/c-s-peirce-
> manuscripts/ms-455-456-1903-lowell-lecture-ii/display/13602:
>
>
>
> The most immediately useful information is that which is conveyed in
> conditional propositions, “*If* you find that this is true, *then* you
> may know that that is true.” Now in ordinary language the conditional form
> is employed to express a variety of relations between one possibility and
> another. Very frequently when we say “If A is true, then B is true,” we
> have in mind a whole range of possibilities, and we assert that among all
> possible cases, every one of those in which A is true will turn out to be a
> case in which B is true also. But in order to obtain a way of expressing
> that sort of conditional proposition, we must begin by getting a way of
> expressing a simpler kind, which does not often occur in ordinary speech
> but which has great importance in logic. The sort of conditional
> proposition I mean is one in which no range of possibilities is
> contemplated, which speaks only of the actual state of things. “If A is
> true then B is true,” in this sense is called a conditional proposition *de
> inesse*. In case A is not true, it makes no assertion at all and
> therefore involves no falsity. And since every proposition is either true
> or false, if the antecedent, A, is not true, the conditional *de inesse*
> is true, no matter how it may be with B. In case the consequent, B, is
> true, all that the conditional *de inesse* asserts is true, and therefore
> it is true, no matter how it may be with A. If however the antecedent, A,
> is true, while the consequent, B, is false, then, and then only is the
> conditional proposition *de inesse* false. This sort of conditional says
> nothing at all about any real connection between antecedent and consequent;
> but limits itself to saying “If you should find that A is true, then you
> may know that B is true,” never mind the why or wherefore.
>
>
>
> *http://gnusystems.ca/Lowell2.htm * }{
> Peirce’s Lowell Lectures of 1903
>
> https://fromthepage.com/jeffdown1/c-s-peirce-manuscripts/ms-455-456-1903-
> lowell-lecture-ii
>
>
>
>
> -
> 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
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>

-
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 .

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories

[Jeffrey Brian Downard]

Edwina, Helmut, List,


If you are interested in Peirce's account of genuine and degenerate relations 
among the elemental categories, then I recommend:


Kruse, Felicia E. "Genuineness and Degeneracy in Peirce's Categories." 
Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 27, no. 3 (1991): 267-298.


--Jeff


Jeffrey Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354

From: Edwina Taborsky 
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 12:21:40 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca; Helmut Raulien
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories


Helmut - my understanding of 'degenerate' is simply that the mode includes 
another mode. So, genuine Secondness refers to a mode of organization or 
composition that functions only within Secondness. Degenerate Secondness 
includes Firstness in that composition.

One can 'theoretically, I suppose, refer to 2-1 as a 'submode' of 2-2, but I 
understand it as I've explained above.

Yes, there are indeed 'more than one way' of something being a functioning part 
of something else.

You wrote: 'The dynamical object is functionally a part of the sign (functional 
composition), but spatially not a part of it (external to it, spatial 
composition)." I

I agree. That is in large part why Peirce referred to his theory as 'objective 
idealism'.

Edwiina




On Mon 23/10/17 3:09 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:

Edwina,
thank you for acknowledging a different view! I have looked at Guess at the 
riddle, not having understood it, so I must look again, taking more time, being 
more focused and concentrated.
Is it so, that "degenerate" mostly applies to classification, e.g. the sign 
classes? While, when it is about composition, it rather is submodes?
About external and internal, regarding the example of the immediate object 
being internal, and the dynamical one being external to the sign, I yesterday 
have written something in my blog www.signs-in-time.de . There (quite at the 
end of it) I have come to the conclusion, that there are more than one ways of 
something being a part of something else: Three ways of composition. The 
dynamical object is functionally a part of the sign (functional composition), 
but spatially not a part of it (external to it, spatial composition).
Best,
Helmut
18. Oktober 2017 um 14:36 Uhr
 "Edwina Taborsky"
wrote.

Helmut - yes, Again, Peirce refers to external and internal frequently  - see 
for example, all through A guess at the riddle.  1. 354-

Yes, I can see the degenerate modes as submodes - except what is interesting 
about them is that they include the other modes, which thus makes them 
degenerate rather than genuine/pure.

I hope I've explained why I describe 3-1 and 3-2 differently from you - though 
I acknowledge the validity of your points.

Edwina



On Tue 17/10/17 9:31 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:



Supplement: "External, internal" are a bit likely to lead to misunderstandings, 
I guess. I think, or rather guess, that, as secondness is actuality and 
firstness possibility, this also applies to the degenerate modes (I rather 
think of them as submodes). So, that (3.1.) is possibility rather, and (3.2.) 
actuality.

Edwina, list,
my concepts of (2.1.), (2.2.), (3.1.), (3.2.), (3.3.) I mostly have abducted 
from immediate object (2.1.), dynamic object (2.2.), immediate (3.1.), dynamic 
(3.2.), final (3.3.) interpretant, and also the parts of the consciousness: 
Sensation of altersense (2.1.), will of altersense (2.2.), abstraction of 
medisense (3.1.), suggestion of medisense (3.2.), association of medisense 
(3.3.). Looking at these, I think that I agree with your (2.1.) and (2.2.), but 
that I see (3.1.) and (3.2.) the other way around than you do, regarding their 
local ex- and internality. Are there btw. any more examples of degenerate modes 
by Peirce?
Best,
Helmut
 17. Oktober 2017 um 21:59 Uhr
 "Edwina Taborsky" wrote:


Helmut - I can see how you are arriving at this outline of the categories - 
matter-form-interaction - and they DO fit into the three modal categories.  My 
own view of the six modes possible within these three categories analyzes how 
they function within time and space.

1-1 [Pure Firstness]- is a mode of existence in Internal Local Space and 
Present time: As internal, which is to say, in the non-actualized or imaginary 
realm - - it provides a host of 'possible' experiences but its existentiality 
as not-actual is without definition and without form and thus, allows for a 
great deal of interpretation, via its open possibilities. A feeling.

2-2 [Pure Secondness] is a mode in External Local Space and Perfect time: As 
external, it provides a discrete actual instantiation

2-1 [Degenerate Secondness] is a borderline interface, in local space..and on 
the border between the external and the internal. It's an 'attractor'. I think 
it functions as a kind of initial condition [its Firstness] , able to link with 
other relat