hi all -- i agree with Andy that Vincent Colapietro's work on Pierce
is really smart and interesting.
perhaps easier to find than his out of print book are his review
articles published in the journal semiotica. i have hard copy
reprints (Vince is a colleague here at penn state) but i'm guessing
the articles would also be available in PDF form from the usual
1998. "Natural porcesses and historical practices: Towards a
postmodern cosmology of human semiosis. Semiotica 119/1-2: 105-155.
[an eloquent essay on science, knowledge, and representation that
entangles semiosis with 'natural' processes and historical practices]
2000. "Robust realism and real externality: The complex commitments
of a convinced pragmatist. Semiotica 130/3-4: 301-372.
[C develops a Peircean approach to hermeneutics]
best wishes, and thanks, Andy, for the digital version of the hard to
>Comrades and friends,
> I have been reading Vincent Colpietro's "Peirce's Approach to the Self".
> This book is so interesting that I felt I must have it to consult after I
> return it to the library, But it is out of print and the only copy on the
> secondhand market costs US$150 plus postage. So, I have scanned in the
> entire 150 pages. The file is 565k so those without broadband need not
> apply, but if you'd like a copy, I will send it to you,
> It is really only of value for those with an interest in the foundations of
> psychology - Peirce lived over a century ago and was not a
> for activity theorists the book is an amazing read.
> Here is the table of contents:
> Chapter One. Is Peirce's Theory of Signs Truly General?
> Chapter Two. Semiosis and Subjectivity
> Chapter Three. The Relevance of Peirce's Semiotics to
> Chapter Four. Peirce's Account of the Self. A
> Developmental Perspective
> Chapter Five. Inwardness and Autonomy
> For Peirce, "semiosis" is "sign-activity". Semiosis goes on everywhere, in
> nature as well as with mind, though semiosis does not exhaust a thing which
> also has "being." Everything is a sign, but later he decides that a "sign"
> does not "represent", it "mediates"; interpretation really means "effect."
> Thought is a species of semiosis, and man, a species of sign, is
> not thought in man (excuse the 19th century sexist word). In my
>search for a
> definition of subjectivity, this is a real find. I am fairly new to Peirce
> and enjoying him greatly.
> Andy Blunden, on behalf of the Victorian Peace Network, Phone (+61) 03-9380
> Alexander Surmava's Tour - September/October 2006
> 1. http://ethicalpolitics.org/alexander-surmava/index.htm
> 2. http://ethicalpolitics.org/alexander-surmava/index.htm
>xmca mailing list
-- Steven L. Thorne Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics Linguistics and Applied Language Studies Associate Director, Center for Language Acquisition Associate Director, Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education and Research The Pennsylvania State University Interact > 814.863.7036 | firstname.lastname@example.org | http://language.la.psu.edu/~thorne/ | IM: avkrook _______________________________________________ xmca mailing list email@example.com http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 01 2006 - 01:00:10 PST