[Index] [Prev] [Next]

Comments to Semios-L

Esa Pikkarainen :
Thu, 13 Jun 1996 08:42:25 GMT+0300

Katya Mandoki wrote ("Re: TUT: SIGN" 12 Jun 96):

> If we could really go by and not get muddled by having to define an apriori
> position (realist/nominalist) from which to deal with semiosis, that would
> be a major step. But I am afraid that Peirce was closer to realism than to
> nominalism. Otherwise, why the need of including the "object" and making
> it into a  tryad?
> Saussure was clearly a nominalist. This is where our troubles began. So
> if we would leave the "object" on the side for a while, perhaps we could
> concentrate in resemblances only.

That's really "bad place". If I consciously try to leave realism/nominalism
debat aside then I believe everyone will accuse me a nominalist?

I would not refer here to any quantum physics but rather to most new
sociology of science by B Latour.(*) (Thats the way how I became
interessed in semiotics.) He is trying to think so that all our
best dicotomies (like most of other things too) are constructed and real
at the same time - because we have nothing else instead. So we can
say that relism/nominalism division is semiotically constructed;
objects are semiotically constructed and even singn are so. There are
no absolutely objective transsendental starting points - not even
sings are those.

I am no Peirce scholar but I have understood him so that he connects
the "object" into semiosis. That means that there are no objects
outside semiosis - there are no objective objects (although there are
dynamic objects inside semiosis - maybe this is why there seems to be
only immediate and dynamic objects but a full triad of interpretants:
inmediate, dynamic and final!).

So it seems to me that we can interpet Peirce from saussurian view,
but maybe not other way round (is this english?).
Oh well - maybe I should no go to this question without better

I must say that I am really amazed! The discussion has begun really

(*) Latour is not a pure semiotician - rather an applier. It seems to
mee that he is most heavily leaning on Greimas. Here are a couple of
most general writings of Latour:
 Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action: How to follow scientists and
   engineers through society. Milton Keynes: Open Univ. Press.
 Latour, B. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. NY: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
 Latour, B. 1992. Where Are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few
   Mundane Artifacts. in Bijker,W & Law, J. (Eds.) 1992. Shaping
   Technology / Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change.
   Cambridge: MIT. p. 225-258.


[Index] [Prev] [Next]

Comments to Semios-L