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

Sat Jul 2 14:00:09 PDT 2016

The relationship between words as signs (symbols) and their objects is a complex one, for sure. Foucault wrote an entire book about “Word and things,” in which he proposed that academic discourse, at least, does not represent a reality that is independent of it, but ‘constitutes’ the objects it discusses. 

I think it has also been said that the symbolic systems of a culture are used to ‘simulate’ aspects of reality. So here we connect up with Helena’s concern. I would say that the first virtual reality was the oral myth, followed quickly by the written narrative. Myths and narratives invite hearers and readers to see the world in a new way, and to conjure up entities that we label ‘fictional,’ but which are as real in their own way as the quarks and black holes we read about, or the gods that religious institutions talk into existence, according to Latour (in “An inquiry into modes of existence").

The trick, or the art, then, is to talk and write in such a way that the objects talked about are conjured over the horizon and into being.

> On Jul 2, 2016, at 8:35 AM, 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