[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



James,
Tony Whitson gives a wonderful exposition of semiotic theory--supported by accessible examples and neat graphics--in this chapter. Some of those examples address your questions about the interpretant. Tony's chapter begins on page 97.
David

https://books.google.com/books?id=w3yRORQocjwC&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=whitson+%22cognition+as+a+semiosic+process%22&source=bl&ots=a5Eej451uH&sig=7I1LbYsnZGkxTbyaOX5n30WKpr8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjo-c_JptDNAhXky4MKHaN-At8Q6AEIKzAD#v=onepage&q=whitson%20%22cognition%20as%20a%20semiosic%20process%22&f=false


-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk)
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 12:17 PM
To: Martin John Packer; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf

Hi Larry, yes, I think it's a fascinating piece too (I first came across his work 11  years ago while doing a postdoc and later on quoted "the semiotic stance" in my article for MCA in 2014).  What's more fascinating - I've just found that there's a whole list of his publications downloadable via http://www.envorganism.org/Essays.html


I've got a question for Martin - when speaking about Kockelman's idea of the interpretant being "not" necessary mental, you gave an example of a plant react ingto sunlight by turning its direction - which you considered to be an interpretant. However, to me, this is a plant's natural response to the stimulus produced by the sun - it is similar to what Jung called IRM (instinctual releasing mechanism) as a result of human organisms' (as well as non-human organisms') behavioural adaptation to the environment through evolution. I'm still wondering why you think this is an interpretant.


James


________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Lplarry <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
Sent: 30 June 2016 16:46
To: Martin John Packer; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf

Not sure if others are reading this fascinating article on the semiotic stance.
The first few pages offer multiple examples of *thirds* that illuminate the complexity of this notion for interpretation.
When discussing Peirce's thirds as 3 components that are a single phenomenal unit, it is equally important to focus on Peirce's further discussions of the iconic component as dividing into (image-icons) (diagrammatic-icons) and (metaphoric-icons) Image icons are qualitative imitation Diagrammatical icons are structural analogy Metaphoric icons refer to parallelism.

Icon images will have some objective correspondence with the signifier (representamen) and the signified (object)

Diagram icons will also have some objective correspondence with signifier and signified.

With Metapor icons the correspondence may be (perceptually) or (experientially) constituted on the basis of a parallelism.

Franson Manjali indicates Percean *units* as *thirds* form a continuum starting from those having a maximum of objective correspondence between the object and the (spatial/temporal) form of the signifier/representamen as in the case of the image-icon, and moving by degrees to the *arbitrary* or (law-like) symbol, where such an objective correspondence is almost absent.
In this continuum the metaphor-icon occupies a middle position, the nature of the correspondence being a parallelism that is subjectively (felt).

The iconicity of the metaphor is thus part OBJECTIVE and part SUBJECTIVE.
The via media way.


Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Martin John Packer