Pub Date : 2020-12-31DOI: 10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.10
M. Konstantinov
Engaging with the methods of studying contemporary digital audiovisual art is a dominant topic in contemporary theories of art. Against this background, the article offers a view onto some aspects of Juri Lotman’s and Gilles Deleuze’s studies on the cinema. As a rule, contemporary studies of digital audiovisual art take place in the context of interdisciplinary studies. One of the methodological principles of such studies consists in adopting a structural and semiotic approach. As of today, this methodological approach to studying audio-visual art is most developed in semiotics of the cinema, which is why in this article visual semiotics in general is viewed through semiotics of the cinema (proceeding from the approach of Juri Lotman). Also, the philosophical understanding of the nature of the cinema offered by Gilles Deleuze has proven fundamental for the study of contemporary audio-visual art. The two authors were contemporaries, but represented different scholarly paradigms: while Juri Lotman was an adherent of structuralism, Gilles Deleuze was a poststructuralist who criticized the structuralist approach. Yet despite this principal difference, both scholars still arrived at similar conclusions as concerns several questions regarding the understanding of the cinema and its very nature. In the present paper I focus on the features of these authors’ approach to spatial and temporal relations in the cinema, audiovisual relations in film as a heterogeneous form of the work of art, virtuality and mythologism in the viewer’s perception of cinema. The differences and similarities in academic approaches to cinema, developed by Lotman and Deleuze, indicate a common direction in the development of the cinema and visual arts theory, which seems relevant for the study of contemporary audio-visual arts.
{"title":"Juri Lotman, Gilles Deleuze and their approaches to cinema: Points of intersection","authors":"M. Konstantinov","doi":"10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.10","url":null,"abstract":"Engaging with the methods of studying contemporary digital audiovisual art is a dominant topic in contemporary theories of art. Against this background, the article offers a view onto some aspects of Juri Lotman’s and Gilles Deleuze’s studies on the cinema. \u0000As a rule, contemporary studies of digital audiovisual art take place in the context of interdisciplinary studies. One of the methodological principles of such studies consists in adopting a structural and semiotic approach. As of today, this methodological approach to studying audio-visual art is most developed in semiotics of the cinema, which is why in this article visual semiotics in general is viewed through semiotics of the cinema (proceeding from the approach of Juri Lotman). Also, the philosophical understanding of the nature of the cinema offered by Gilles Deleuze has proven fundamental for the study of contemporary audio-visual art. \u0000The two authors were contemporaries, but represented different scholarly paradigms: while Juri Lotman was an adherent of structuralism, Gilles Deleuze was a poststructuralist who criticized the structuralist approach. Yet despite this principal difference, both scholars still arrived at similar conclusions as concerns several questions regarding the understanding of the cinema and its very nature. In the present paper I focus on the features of these authors’ approach to spatial and temporal relations in the cinema, audiovisual relations in film as a heterogeneous form of the work of art, virtuality and mythologism in the viewer’s perception of cinema. \u0000The differences and similarities in academic approaches to cinema, developed by Lotman and Deleuze, indicate a common direction in the development of the cinema and visual arts theory, which seems relevant for the study of contemporary audio-visual arts.","PeriodicalId":44467,"journal":{"name":"Sign Systems Studies","volume":"48 1","pages":"392-414"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47024351","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-31DOI: 10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.14
Nelly Mäekivi, Silver Rattasepp
Nils Lindahl Elliot has significantly contributed to semiotic analysis of nature and to the ways in which it is mediated, especially with his transdisciplinary social semeiotic approach that he developed in Mediating Nature (2006). This book propelled his recognition in the field of semiotic studies, especially amongst the ecosemiotic community. In Lindahl Elliot’s newest book Observing Wildlife in Tropical Forests. 1: A Geosemeiotic Approach he delves even deeper into transdisciplinary inquiry of observing wildlife, using what he calls a geosemeiotic approach (with the extra “e” serving as a tribute to Peirce). More traditionally, geosemiotics is seen as a research field that studies social meanings of signs, discourses and actions as related to a specific place (Scollon, Scollon 2003). Although both Lindahl Elliot’s and Scollon and Scollon’s approaches incorporate Peircean semiotics when introducing the nature of signs, and consider the specificity of the place of communication in its widest sense to be of utmost importance, the essences of these approaches could not be further from each other. While geosemiotics turns its attention to visual semiotics, interaction order and semiotics of place, geosemeiotics emphasizes the encounter of dynamical bodies; while geosemiotics is concerned with humans, geosemeiotics stresses the coming together of human and more-than-human bodies which constitute assemblages. These are just some cursory differences between geosemiotics and geosemeiotics; what Lindahl Elliot actually proposes is a new transdisciplinary approach, which encompasses different perspectives (semeiotic, geographic, ecological and socioanthropological) on wildlife observation, forming his multifaceted theory into a single coherent framework.
{"title":"Observing wildlife through the eyes of Nils Lindahl Elliot","authors":"Nelly Mäekivi, Silver Rattasepp","doi":"10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.14","url":null,"abstract":"Nils Lindahl Elliot has significantly contributed to semiotic analysis of nature and to the ways in which it is mediated, especially with his transdisciplinary social semeiotic approach that he developed in Mediating Nature (2006). This book propelled his recognition in the field of semiotic studies, especially amongst the ecosemiotic community. In Lindahl Elliot’s newest book Observing Wildlife in Tropical Forests. 1: A Geosemeiotic Approach he delves even deeper into transdisciplinary inquiry of observing wildlife, using what he calls a geosemeiotic approach (with the extra “e” serving as a tribute to Peirce). More traditionally, geosemiotics is seen as a research field that studies social meanings of signs, discourses and actions as related to a specific place (Scollon, Scollon 2003). Although both Lindahl Elliot’s and Scollon and Scollon’s approaches incorporate Peircean semiotics when introducing the nature of signs, and consider the specificity of the place of communication in its widest sense to be of utmost importance, the essences of these approaches could not be further from each other. While geosemiotics turns its attention to visual semiotics, interaction order and semiotics of place, geosemeiotics emphasizes the encounter of dynamical bodies; while geosemiotics is concerned with humans, geosemeiotics stresses the coming together of human and more-than-human bodies which constitute assemblages. These are just some cursory differences between geosemiotics and geosemeiotics; what Lindahl Elliot actually proposes is a new transdisciplinary approach, which encompasses different perspectives (semeiotic, geographic, ecological and socioanthropological) on wildlife observation, forming his multifaceted theory into a single coherent framework.","PeriodicalId":44467,"journal":{"name":"Sign Systems Studies","volume":"48 1","pages":"510-518"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46041828","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-31DOI: 10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.11
Arthur Araujo
The paper approximates Jakob von Uexküll’s theory of meaning and the process-thought in Alfred Whitehead’s philosophy. As the main idea, the paper points at the compatibility of meaning and process according to the perspectives of Uexküll and Whitehead. It suggests that Uexküll’s common meaning rule can describe the processes of novelty in the world as does Whitehead’s principle of creativity. It is also suggested that Uexküll and Whitehead abandon a substantialist view of the organism – the organism means much more process, activity and creation than anything thing-like. In approaching Uexküll’s theory of meaning, a semiotic interpretation of Whitehead’s principle of creativity is proposed in which the concept of the threshold is fundamental to defining the boundary between the semiotic and the non-semiotic areas corresponding to the living (animate) and the non-living (inanimate). In conclusion, the paper suggests that the activity of meaning distinguishes animate entities from inanimate ones in the sense that meaning and life overlap – meaning could not have existed prior to life (and to the contrary).
{"title":"Uexküll and Whitehead on meaning, process and life","authors":"Arthur Araujo","doi":"10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.11","url":null,"abstract":"The paper approximates Jakob von Uexküll’s theory of meaning and the process-thought in Alfred Whitehead’s philosophy. As the main idea, the paper points at the compatibility of meaning and process according to the perspectives of Uexküll and Whitehead. It suggests that Uexküll’s common meaning rule can describe the processes of novelty in the world as does Whitehead’s principle of creativity. It is also suggested that Uexküll and Whitehead abandon a substantialist view of the organism – the organism means much more process, activity and creation than anything thing-like. In approaching Uexküll’s theory of meaning, a semiotic interpretation of Whitehead’s principle of creativity is proposed in which the concept of the threshold is fundamental to defining the boundary between the semiotic and the non-semiotic areas corresponding to the living (animate) and the non-living (inanimate). In conclusion, the paper suggests that the activity of meaning distinguishes animate entities from inanimate ones in the sense that meaning and life overlap – meaning could not have existed prior to life (and to the contrary).","PeriodicalId":44467,"journal":{"name":"Sign Systems Studies","volume":"48 1","pages":"415-449"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66687240","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-30DOI: 10.12697/sss.2020.48.1.01
P. Cobley, Adrian Pablé, J. Siebers
Editorial: Signs and communicators
社论：标志和传播者
{"title":"Editorial: Signs and communicators","authors":"P. Cobley, Adrian Pablé, J. Siebers","doi":"10.12697/sss.2020.48.1.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.2020.48.1.01","url":null,"abstract":"Editorial: Signs and communicators \u0000 \u0000 ","PeriodicalId":44467,"journal":{"name":"Sign Systems Studies","volume":"48 1","pages":"7-11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48490554","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-30DOI: 10.12697/sss.2020.48.1.09
P. Cobley
Review of Integrationism and the Self: Reflections on the Legal Personhood of Animals [Series Routledge Advances in Communication and Linguistic Theory] by Christopher Hutton. London: Routledge, 2019, 190 pp.
{"title":"“Who goes there?” Reflections on signs and personhood in Christopher Hutton’s Integrationism and the Self","authors":"P. Cobley","doi":"10.12697/sss.2020.48.1.09","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.2020.48.1.09","url":null,"abstract":"Review of Integrationism and the Self: Reflections on the Legal Personhood of Animals [Series Routledge Advances in Communication and Linguistic Theory] by Christopher Hutton. London: Routledge, 2019, 190 pp.","PeriodicalId":44467,"journal":{"name":"Sign Systems Studies","volume":"48 1","pages":"159-173"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47961329","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-30DOI: 10.12697/sss.2020.48.1.05
D. Duncker
This paper investigates the kind of sign making that goes on in text-based human–computer interaction, between human users and chatbots, from the point of view of integrational linguistics. A chatbot serves as a “conversational” user interface, allowing users to control computer programs in “natural language”. From the user’s perspective, the interaction is a case of semiologically integrated activity, but even if the textual traces of a chat may look like a written conversation between two humans the correspondence is not one-to-one. It is argued that chatbots cannot engage in communication processes, although they may display communicative behaviour. They presuppose a (second-order) language model, they can only communicate at the level of sentences, not utterances, and they implement communicational sequels by selecting from an inventory of executable skills. Instead of seeing them as interlocutors in silico, chatbots should be seen as powerful devices for humans to make signs with.
{"title":"Chatting with chatbots: Sign making in text-based human–computer interaction","authors":"D. Duncker","doi":"10.12697/sss.2020.48.1.05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.2020.48.1.05","url":null,"abstract":"This paper investigates the kind of sign making that goes on in text-based human–computer interaction, between human users and chatbots, from the point of view of integrational linguistics. A chatbot serves as a “conversational” user interface, allowing users to control computer programs in “natural language”. From the user’s perspective, the interaction is a case of semiologically integrated activity, but even if the textual traces of a chat may look like a written conversation between two humans the correspondence is not one-to-one. It is argued that chatbots cannot engage in communication processes, although they may display communicative behaviour. They presuppose a (second-order) language model, they can only communicate at the level of sentences, not utterances, and they implement communicational sequels by selecting from an inventory of executable skills. Instead of seeing them as interlocutors in silico, chatbots should be seen as powerful devices for humans to make signs with.","PeriodicalId":44467,"journal":{"name":"Sign Systems Studies","volume":"48 1","pages":"79-100"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.12697/sss.2020.48.1.05","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43788232","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-30DOI: 10.12697/sss.2020.48.1.04
C. Bazalgette
Film scholarship has consistently avoided discussing how we learn to understand the complex, multimodal systems of communication that moving-image media (referred to here as ‘movies’) have evolved into over the last 125 years. This article offers some reasons for this neglect: in particular, the popular assumption that movies are extremely easy to understand, and the relative lack of research on two-year-olds – the crucial phase in which this learning must take place. Drawing on a 20-month study of a pair of dizygotic twins, a vignette of their early viewing behaviour illustrates the features of focused attention which characterized their investment of energy in trying to make sense of movies. An analysis of this phenomenon, using concepts from embodied cognition, shows how instinctive responses relate to thought and reflection. Setting two-year-olds’ movie-watching within the wider contexts of story-reading, play and the enjoyment of repetition, the article provides evidence that such learning does take place and can be seen as a significant aspect of two-year-olds’ “entry into culture”.
{"title":"Even a two-year-old can do it! The early stages of learning to understand moving-image media","authors":"C. Bazalgette","doi":"10.12697/sss.2020.48.1.04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.2020.48.1.04","url":null,"abstract":"Film scholarship has consistently avoided discussing how we learn to understand the complex, multimodal systems of communication that moving-image media (referred to here as ‘movies’) have evolved into over the last 125 years. This article offers some reasons for this neglect: in particular, the popular assumption that movies are extremely easy to understand, and the relative lack of research on two-year-olds – the crucial phase in which this learning must take place. Drawing on a 20-month study of a pair of dizygotic twins, a vignette of their early viewing behaviour illustrates the features of focused attention which characterized their investment of energy in trying to make sense of movies. An analysis of this phenomenon, using concepts from embodied cognition, shows how instinctive responses relate to thought and reflection. Setting two-year-olds’ movie-watching within the wider contexts of story-reading, play and the enjoyment of repetition, the article provides evidence that such learning does take place and can be seen as a significant aspect of two-year-olds’ “entry into culture”.","PeriodicalId":44467,"journal":{"name":"Sign Systems Studies","volume":"48 1","pages":"56-78"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43163007","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-30DOI: 10.12697/sss.2020.48.1.07
Adrian Pablé
This paper is a study in the ‘philosophy of semiotics’. It is centred on a critical approach to the Peircean sign conception, which underlies biosemiotics and the global perspective on signs. The present discussion tackles questions of ontological and epistemological interest, which it does by taking a distinctly semiological point of reference. The semiology which the present critique draws inspiration from is Roy Harris’ integrationism, an approach to human communication which rejects Saussurean semiology – the common target of Peircean semiotics. Integrationism explains signs in relation to human activities. It shares with biosemiotics a view of reality as speciesspecific, but takes a skeptical position towards the investigation of non-human signs on the grounds that it implies a metalanguage impervious to the radical indeterminacy of the sign. Integrationists take this indeterminacy as the starting point for their reflections on human communication.
{"title":"Integrating biosemiotics: From a semiological point of view","authors":"Adrian Pablé","doi":"10.12697/sss.2020.48.1.07","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.2020.48.1.07","url":null,"abstract":"This paper is a study in the ‘philosophy of semiotics’. It is centred on a critical approach to the Peircean sign conception, which underlies biosemiotics and the global perspective on signs. The present discussion tackles questions of ontological and epistemological interest, which it does by taking a distinctly semiological point of reference. The semiology which the present critique draws inspiration from is Roy Harris’ integrationism, an approach to human communication which rejects Saussurean semiology – the common target of Peircean semiotics. Integrationism explains signs in relation to human activities. It shares with biosemiotics a view of reality as speciesspecific, but takes a skeptical position towards the investigation of non-human signs on the grounds that it implies a metalanguage impervious to the radical indeterminacy of the sign. Integrationists take this indeterminacy as the starting point for their reflections on human communication.","PeriodicalId":44467,"journal":{"name":"Sign Systems Studies","volume":"48 1","pages":"125-145"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45499290","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-30DOI: 10.12697/SSS.2020.48.1.03
P. Kastberg
Even though both Ernst von Glasersfeld, the founding father of radical constructivism, and his epistemological alter ego, Heinz von Foerster, one of the principal architects of second-order cybernetics, would both repeatedly stress the formative importance of communication, neither would ever model communication as a phenomenon per se. I will propose a first modelling of communication as seen through the stereoscopic lens of these two schools of thought. I will first present, discuss and evaluate how communication is traditionally modelled. This will serve as an informed backdrop when I proceed to integrate the common denominators pertaining to communication from relevant works of both scholars. In addition to the fact that both would willingly profess to the ‘Linguolaxis’ of Maturana and Varela, i.e., that humans exist suspended in communication, two basic assumptions have proven formative. Firstly, that communication is perceived as a flux, as an almost William-James-like ‘stream of communication’. Secondly, and this is more in the vein of Heraclitus, that both communicators and communication alike undergo transformations in the process of immersion. This implies favouring a view of communication in which communication is a perpetual oscillation between ongoing reciprocal perturbations (Glasersfeld), that occur over time, and the endeavours to re-establish (cognitive) homeostasis (Foerster). The latter must not be reduced to either mere compliance, as it were, i.e., that the ‘other’ does as s/he is told, or to the mutual understanding of a dominance-free communication of a Habermasian persuasion, but rather in the pragmatic notion of ‘compatibility’ (Glasersfeld). For illustrative purposes I will end this paper by translating these notions into a model depicting what I have labelled co-actional communication, in effect forging an exemplar.
尽管激进建构主义的创始人Ernst von Glasersfeld和他的认识论另一个自我Heinz von Foerster，二阶控制论的主要架构师之一，都会反复强调沟通的形成重要性，但他们都不会将沟通本身建模为一种现象。我将提出通过这两个学派的立体视角来看待沟通的第一个模型。我将首先介绍、讨论和评估传统的沟通模式。当我从两位学者的相关著作中整合与传播有关的共同点时，这将成为一个知情的背景。除了两人都愿意承认Maturana和Varela的“Linguolassis”，即人类存在于交流中，两个基本假设已被证明是形成性的。首先，这种交流被视为一种流动，就像威廉·詹姆斯式的“交流流”。其次，这更符合赫拉克利特的风格，传播者和传播者都在沉浸的过程中经历了转变。这意味着赞成一种沟通观点，即沟通是随着时间的推移而发生的持续的相互干扰（Glasersfeld）和重建（认知）稳态的努力（Foerster）之间的永久振荡。后者不能被简化为纯粹的顺从，也就是说，“另一方”按照别人的指示行事，或者被简化为哈贝马斯式说服的无主导权沟通的相互理解，而是在“兼容性”的务实概念中（格拉瑟斯菲尔德）。为了便于说明，我将把这些概念翻译成一个模型，描述我所称的合作沟通，实际上是一个例子。
{"title":"Modelling the reciprocal dynamics of dialogical communication: On the communication-philosophical undercurrent of radical constructivism and second-order cybernetics","authors":"P. Kastberg","doi":"10.12697/SSS.2020.48.1.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2020.48.1.03","url":null,"abstract":"Even though both Ernst von Glasersfeld, the founding father of radical constructivism, and his epistemological alter ego, Heinz von Foerster, one of the principal architects of second-order cybernetics, would both repeatedly stress the formative importance of communication, neither would ever model communication as a phenomenon per se. I will propose a first modelling of communication as seen through the stereoscopic lens of these two schools of thought. I will first present, discuss and evaluate how communication is traditionally modelled. This will serve as an informed backdrop when I proceed to integrate the common denominators pertaining to communication from relevant works of both scholars. In addition to the fact that both would willingly profess to the ‘Linguolaxis’ of Maturana and Varela, i.e., that humans exist suspended in communication, two basic assumptions have proven formative. Firstly, that communication is perceived as a flux, as an almost William-James-like ‘stream of communication’. Secondly, and this is more in the vein of Heraclitus, that both communicators and communication alike undergo transformations in the process of immersion. This implies favouring a view of communication in which communication is a perpetual oscillation between ongoing reciprocal perturbations (Glasersfeld), that occur over time, and the endeavours to re-establish (cognitive) homeostasis (Foerster). The latter must not be reduced to either mere compliance, as it were, i.e., that the ‘other’ does as s/he is told, or to the mutual understanding of a dominance-free communication of a Habermasian persuasion, but rather in the pragmatic notion of ‘compatibility’ (Glasersfeld). For illustrative purposes I will end this paper by translating these notions into a model depicting what I have labelled co-actional communication, in effect forging an exemplar.","PeriodicalId":44467,"journal":{"name":"Sign Systems Studies","volume":"48 1","pages":"32-55"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.12697/SSS.2020.48.1.03","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48223898","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-30DOI: 10.12697/sss.2020.48.1.06
C. Barnham
Peirce’s semiotics is well known for advocating a triadic, rather than a dyadic, sign structure, but interpretations of how such a structure works in practice have varied considerably. This paper argues that the Peircean ‘object’ is central to understanding Peirce’s philosophical intent and that this element should be construed as a mediating element within the sign rather than as an originating source of it. This interpretation resonates with the fundamentally anti-dualist character of Peirce’s philosophy and it creates potential convergences with the medieval philosophy of Duns Scotus – which was so influential in Peirce’s thinking. Moreover, construal of the ‘object’ as a mediating entity within the sign highlights important parallels with Hegelian thought and the role of the ‘essence’ in the latter’s dialectics. It is argued, indeed, that Peirce’s triadic template for the sign has strong Hegelian roots. This substantially repositions Peirce’s semiotics; it becomes, as in Hegel’s dialectics, an account of concept formation. The over-arching framework in which this takes place, however, retains an adherence to Peirce’s empiricist background and so avoids the reliance on logic which is the defining characteristic of Hegel’s dialectical method.
{"title":"Hegel and the Peircean ‘object’","authors":"C. Barnham","doi":"10.12697/sss.2020.48.1.06","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.2020.48.1.06","url":null,"abstract":"Peirce’s semiotics is well known for advocating a triadic, rather than a dyadic, sign structure, but interpretations of how such a structure works in practice have varied considerably. This paper argues that the Peircean ‘object’ is central to understanding Peirce’s philosophical intent and that this element should be construed as a mediating element within the sign rather than as an originating source of it. This interpretation resonates with the fundamentally anti-dualist character of Peirce’s philosophy and it creates potential convergences with the medieval philosophy of Duns Scotus – which was so influential in Peirce’s thinking. Moreover, construal of the ‘object’ as a mediating entity within the sign highlights important parallels with Hegelian thought and the role of the ‘essence’ in the latter’s dialectics. It is argued, indeed, that Peirce’s triadic template for the sign has strong Hegelian roots. This substantially repositions Peirce’s semiotics; it becomes, as in Hegel’s dialectics, an account of concept formation. The over-arching framework in which this takes place, however, retains an adherence to Peirce’s empiricist background and so avoids the reliance on logic which is the defining characteristic of Hegel’s dialectical method.","PeriodicalId":44467,"journal":{"name":"Sign Systems Studies","volume":"48 1","pages":"101-124"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.12697/sss.2020.48.1.06","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42975143","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：