A horse with no name, a sign with no object?

From: Bill Barowy (xmcageek@comcast.net)
Date: Fri Dec 17 2004 - 07:00:59 PST

(Betting dollars to donuts someone disliked that song)

What I'm wondering is, how does Peirce's semiotics stand in relation to
activity theory, and specifically with Wartofsky's mapping? Where is
intentionality in semiotics? Is it in this doubt that Don mentions?

Here's a reminder of Wartofsky ala Engestrom, with the ref following from
which it came:

Wartofsky (1979) proposes three types of artifact that mediate human action
and this class is developed by Engestrom (Engestrom, 1990) into a
three-level hierarchy, mapping on to Leont'ev's (1981) hierarchy of activity
. Primary artifacts are tools used directly in production to mediate the
relationship between the subject and object of activity; secondary artifacts
are representations of modes of action - models - used to preserve and
transmit skills in the production and use of primary artifacts; tertiary
artifacts are imaginative or visionary and give "identity and overarching
perspective to collective activity systems" (Engestrom, 1990, p.174).


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 01 2005 - 01:00:04 PST