This year is the centenary of Ferdinand de Saussure's Cours de
Linguistique Générale.
I am organizing a workshop next January in Geneva within the centenary
congress:
The Arbitariness of the Sign
http://www.clg2016.org/en/geneva/programme/workshops/the-arbitrariness-of-the-sign/
This is a foll
Ben N., List:
BN: What I mean in the example of firstness, etc. above is that the shock
or sound waves constitute firstness, i.e., brute reality.
In Peircean terminology as I understand it, "brute reality" is a muddled
notion. Anything "brute" is Secondness, and therefore *exists*. That
inclu
Ben - I think you are correct in your example and definition of Firstness and
Secondness. That is, the sound/shock wave that you feel in your body IS an
example of Firstness. As Peirce writes, this is a STATE, not a reaction [which
would be Secondness].
"A feeling, then, is not an event, a ha
Edwina, List:
Apparently we disagree once more, and I will try to be more careful going
forward about how I express my interpretation of Peirce. My understanding
is that he classified anything "singular," any *event *that happens or
occurs, as Secondness; and that he considered any "interaction"
Dear Jon:
There are several issues floating around.
1. Example of firstness, secondness, thirdness
You disagree with my example, as well as its amendment, but give a
definition of secondness that, unfortunately, does not compute for me. I
assume you are right, but you may be at a level of abst
Ben,
The difference between Firstness and Secondness is not really that complicated;
I think if you look at the way Peirce defines them in the “Neglected Argument”
essay itself (as the first and second Universes, EP2:435), you’ll see that Jon
has it exactly right. Perhaps you’re confused by
Dear Jean-Yves Beziau & the list!
The one and only linguist, who knew both Saussure and Peirce ' by
heart', was Roman Jakobson. He never agreed with the idea of
arbitrariness of the sign. He even took the famous 'Cours' compiled by
the students of Saussure as a misunderstanding, a misintepreta
Hi Ben, Harold, Jon, Edwina, Gary list:
This whole business of *one two three; one three two; Firstness Secondness
Thirdness; Firstness Thirdness, Secondness; what is First or Second when
speaking of an object *appears irresolvable. Everyone has his/her own pet
theory for which it ought to be a
Ben - I don't think that you should 'assume that any of us is 'right' in our
interpretations of Peirce. You'll have to come to your own conclusions. BUT -
there is a great difference in our interpretations - of that, there is no doubt.
I see Peircean semiosis as necessarily interactional; there
Ben - I don't think that you should 'assume that any of us is 'right' in our
interpretations of Peirce. You'll have to come to your own conclusions. BUT -
there is a great difference in our interpretations - of that, there is no doubt.
I see Peircean semiosis as necessarily interactional; there
Hi list:
“Ben - I don't think that you should 'assume that any of us is 'right' in
our interpretations of Peirce.”
This is the first dangerous step toward loss of morality induced by a move
toward pluralism when it is not warranted. But then again, why not this
when the alternative is no bet
Jerry - I disagree that scepticism towards the validity of someone else's
interpretation is also a 'loss of morality' or a movement towards
pluralism/relativism.
After all - should I, centuries ago, have accepted the Church's view that the
sun went around the earth? Should I have accepted that
Thanks Kirsti
that sounds very good
if you or someone else wants to come to our workshop in Geneva next January
to talk about Jakobson (s)he most welcome.
Best Wishes
Jean-Yves
2016-09-14 18:48 GMT+02:00 :
> Dear Jean-Yves Beziau & the list!
>
> The one and only linguist, who knew both Saussure
Edwina, List:
ET: I don't think that you should 'assume that any of us is 'right' in
our interpretations of Peirce. You'll have to come to your own conclusions.
BUT - there is a great difference in our interpretations - of that, there
is no doubt.
I agree that no one should *assume *that one o
Jon, list:
Yes, we do indeed interpret Peirce very differently.
As noted, my view is that semiosis is dynamic and interactional.
ET: I see Peircean semiosis as necessarily interactional; there is no such
thing as a Sign [the triad] or even the Relations, as an isolate
'thing-in-itself'. Sign
Edwina, List:
ET: And I don't consider that Signs have ' being' independent of any
interaction! ... And I don't define the modal categories as having any
objective reality outside of the semiosic articulation ... I don't think
that the modal categories are merely 'aspects of phenomena' but are in
Jon, list; Yes, this is how I interpret Peirce. You interpret him differently.
Again, as I've said before, I will not get into any interaction with you if you
self-define YOUR interpretation as 'the true Peirce'.
And yes, I know that some people on this list agree with your interpretations
and
(Sorry I thought I sent this before I left my office yesterday only to find it
still on my screen. I know the discussion has moved on but I figured I’d post
it anyway)
> On Sep 13, 2016, at 11:12 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>
> Clark- yes, I think that the disagreements in interpretation of Pei
Jon wrote:
*While signs indeed "exist only within interaction" (Secondness), both
Qualisigns (Firstness) and Legisigns (Thirdness) have Being that is
independent of any interaction; i.e., they are Real apart from actually
being instantiated as Sinsigns.*
I have no idea regarding the actual uses of
Edwina, List:
Since you mentioned earlier that you are an atheist, do you acknowledge
that your view is clearly different from that of Peirce regarding the
Reality of God?
Thanks,
Jon
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> Jon, list; Yes, this is how I interpret Peirce. You
Jon, list:
What a bizarre question. You can't be asserting that an atheist cannot
interpret Peirce's analysis of God - for such a claim would be untenable. You
can't be asserting that I SHOULD interpret his claim - since I was very clear
that I would not discuss it. Therefore, I've no idea of th
Edwina, List:
I am not asserting anything, just asking a sincere question. As an atheist
(by your own description), do you acknowledge that your view is clearly
different from that of Peirce regarding the Reality of God? No
interpretation is required here, just a simple yes or no.
Thanks,
Jon
Hi Jon,
I think this is inquisitory in tone, and not appropriate here.
Also, both of you: I appreciate your differences, but this is
getting tiresome.
Thanks, Mike
On 9/14/2016 8:32 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt
wrote:
Edwina, List:
Mike, List:
Tone is often difficult to convey or perceive accurately in e-mail
messages. How is asking a sincere question prompted by a genuine desire to
clarify someone else's views "not appropriate here"? I always welcome
feedback from the moderators, and am confident that one of them will inf
24 matches
Mail list logo
