[Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf

[Greg Thompson]

And I thought this (from Kockelman's Semiotic Stance) was a nice summary of
the trouble with Saussure (and similar semiotic systems):

"Indeed, the typical focus on sign-object relations (or ‘signifiers’ and
‘signifieds’), at the expense of sign-interpretant relations, and this
concomitant understanding of objects as ‘objective’ and interpretants as
‘subjective’ — and hence the assimilation of meaning to mind, rather than
grounding mind in meaning— is one of the most fatal flaws of twentieth
century semiotics." (p. 239-240).

Perhaps CHAT took an altogether different tack - looking at
interpretant-object relations?

But maybe I'm speaking out of turn?

-greg



On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:35 PM, Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Aha, so not always "over the horizon".
>
> But what about your original comment to Andy:
> "Right, Andy: the word ‘object’ is a sign whose object is itself over the
> horizon, projected there by writers and readers alike as they interpret the
> sign."
>
> Does the object of the word "object" ever appear? Or is the object of
> "object" always over the horizon?
>
> Still figuring.
> -greg
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Martin John Packer <
> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote:
>
>> On reflection, perhaps it would be clearer to say that…
>>
>> ... what is beyond the horizon can come over the horizon, and appear.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> > On Jul 1, 2016, at 8:18 PM, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > No, Greg, because things can and do come over the horizon! What’s over
>> the horizon does not appear now, but it can in the future.
>> >
>> > The dark cloud is a sign of rain. There is rain, perhaps, over the
>> horizon. When the rain arrives, it is a sign of a cold July. When a cold
>> July has arrived, it is a sign of El Niño.
>> >
>> > It appears that rain is coming; then the rain is real. It appears that
>> July will be cold; then that becomes a reality. Not necessarily, of course:
>> the reality can be different than what appears to be real. But we are
>> reading signs all the time. Imagining what the future will bring. And then
>> it does! (Or doesn’t.)
>> >
>> > Martin
>> >
>> >
>> >> On Jul 1, 2016, at 7:07 PM, Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Martin,
>> >> So I'm wondering: does the "over the horizon"-ness of the object and
>> the
>> >> appearance/reality quality of the situation lead us back to
>> >> phenomena/noumena?
>> >> I know you are committed non-dualist but I don't understand how to fit
>> >> these moves together.
>> >> Seems like "over the horizon" takes us back to Kant's idea of the
>> >> un-knowability of the object.
>> >> I'd love to hear more.
>> >> -greg
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 2:50 AM, Martin John Packer <
>> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Right, Andy: the word ‘object’ is a sign whose object is itself over
>> the
>> >>> horizon, projected there by writers and readers alike as they
>> interpret the
>> >>> sign.
>> >>>
>> >>> Martin
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Jun 30, 2016, at 8:52 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> :) It is impossible to argue with what you say, Martin, without using
>> >>> the word (i.e. sign) "object" in the belioef that the reader will
>> >>> understand what is being referenced!
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Andy
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>>> Andy Blunden
>> >>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy
>> >>>>
>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
>> >>>> On 1/07/2016 11:14 AM, Martin John Packer wrote:
>> >>>>> My take on this diagram, Greg, is that Tony wants to illustrate how
>> in
>> >>> Peirce’s scheme the object is, so to speak, always 'over the
>> horizon.’ I
>> >>> think we’re back here to appearance/reality: the sign is what
>> appears, but
>> >>> it is taken as an appearance of an object that is not given directly.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Martin
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Jun 30, 2016, at 7:42 PM, Greg Thompson <
>> greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Tony's figure 7.3 makes me doubly anxious
>> >>>>>> about this since it seems to suggest that the object and the
>> >>> representamen
>> >>>>>> exist in different realms. I'm fine with that kind of dualism in a
>> >>>>>> dualistic account, but it seems not quite right to have such a
>> dualism
>> >>> as
>> >>>>>> part of an account whose goal is non-dualism).
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>> >> Assistant Professor
>> >> Department of Anthropology
>> >> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>> >> Brigham Young University
>> >> Provo, UT 84602
>> >> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>



-- 
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson