[Index] [Prev] [Next]

Comments to Semios-L

Katya Mandoki :
Re: TUT: SIGN;
Thu, 13 Jun 1996 13:04:56 -0600

On Thu, 13 Jun 1996, Esa Pikkarainen wrote:
> 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.

Between the constructionist and realist perspectives, the difference is a
matter of emphasis. Latour is a constructionist, which is on the side of
nominalism.

> 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
> arguments.

Right! I think so too. It seems we can adjust Peirce with Saussure's
simpler terminology, and at the same time inject Saussure with Pierce's
dynamism and diversification.  Result: either a peirceurean or a
sauspeircian approach. Saussure was clear, but more of a linguist than a
semiologist. We cannot go too far with him alone. Peirce was a true
semiotician, but very confusing.

 Katya Mandoki

[Index] [Prev] [Next]

Comments to Semios-L