headers
Renato Bressan | 1 Jun 2010 12:35
Picon

Deleuze and Peirce

Dear friends,

A few days I read about a Gilles Deleuze's concept called "Zeroness" and its relations between Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness. But the perspective of analysis was not Peircean. Could you please send me some references, papers or ebooks about that Zeroness and the three Peircean categories, through a Peircean approach?

Thank you!

Best regards,

Renato T. Bressan
Brazilian student; has a fellowship sponsored by CAPES through the Graduate Program in Communication and Society from Federal University of Juiz de Fora (PPGCOM/UFJF), in Brazil. 
+55 32 8813-0609
http://meadiciona.com/renatobressan
http://buscatextual.cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.jsp?id=K4267399E6 (CV)

--------

Click on the following URL link for THE PEIRCE BLOG, the

central pointer and guide to Peirce resources on the web:

                  http://csp3.blogspot.com/


-------          

If you want to cancel your subscription to PEIRCE-L send a

message to the list manager at the following address:

     joseph.ransdell <at> yahoo.com

No reason need be given, just say "unsub", followed by your address

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Clark Goble | 1 Jun 2010 23:51

Re: Deleuze and Peirce


On Jun 1, 2010, at 4:35 AM, Renato Bressan wrote:

A few days I read about a Gilles Deleuze's concept called "Zeroness" and its relations between Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness. But the perspective of analysis was not Peircean. Could you please send me some references, papers or ebooks about that Zeroness and the three Peircean categories, through a Peircean approach?

I'm not at all well versed in Deleuze, but you might wish to see some of Kelly Parker's work on Peirce.  He analyzes Peirce as a neoPlatonist and postulates a zeroth category.  See:


The main Peircean text is:

If we are to proceed in a logical and scientific manner, we must, in order to account for the whole universe, suppose an initial condition in which the whole universe was non-existent, and therefore a state of absolute nothing.
. . .
But this is not the nothing of negation. . . . The nothing of negation is the nothing of death, which comes second to, or after, everything. But this pure zero is the nothing of not having been born. There is no individual thing, no compulsion, outward nor inward, no law. It is the germinal nothing, in which the whole universe is involved or foreshadowed. As such, it is absolutely undefined and unlimited possibility -- boundless possibility. There is no compulsion and no law. It is boundless freedom.
Now the question arises, what necessarily resulted from that state of things? But the only sane answer is that where freedom was boundless nothing in particular necessarily resulted.
. . .
I say that nothing necessarily resulted from the Nothing of boundless freedom. That is, nothing according to deductive logic. But such is not the logic of freedom or possibility. The logic of freedom, or potentiality, is that it shall annul itself. For if it does not annul itself, it remains a completely idle and do-nothing potentiality; and a completely idle potentiality is annulled by its complete idleness. (CP 6.215-219)

--------

Click on the following URL link for THE PEIRCE BLOG, the

central pointer and guide to Peirce resources on the web:

                  http://csp3.blogspot.com/


-------          

If you want to cancel your subscription to PEIRCE-L send a

message to the list manager at the following address:

     joseph.ransdell <at> yahoo.com

No reason need be given, just say "unsub", followed by your address

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
David Wooten | 2 Jun 2010 01:29

Re: Deleuze and Peirce

Renato, you might check out Paul Bains'  "The Primacy of Semiosis: An Ontology of Relations", which discusses at some length the correspondences between Deleuze's approach to relations and that of Peirce. I'm not sure if you can find it in ebook form.

David Wooten 

On Jun 1, 2010, at 2:51 PM, Clark Goble wrote:

On Jun 1, 2010, at 4:35 AM, Renato Bressan wrote:

A few days I read about a Gilles Deleuze's concept called "Zeroness" and its relations between Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness. But the perspective of analysis was not Peircean. Could you please send me some references, papers or ebooks about that Zeroness and the three Peircean categories, through a Peircean approach?

I'm not at all well versed in Deleuze, but you might wish to see some of Kelly Parker's work on Peirce.  He analyzes Peirce as a neoPlatonist and postulates a zeroth category.  See:


The main Peircean text is:

If we are to proceed in a logical and scientific manner, we must, in order to account for the whole universe, suppose an initial condition in which the whole universe was non-existent, and therefore a state of absolute nothing.
. . .
But this is not the nothing of negation. . . . The nothing of negation is the nothing of death, which comes second to, or after, everything. But this pure zero is the nothing of not having been born. There is no individual thing, no compulsion, outward nor inward, no law. It is the germinal nothing, in which the whole universe is involved or foreshadowed. As such, it is absolutely undefined and unlimited possibility -- boundless possibility. There is no compulsion and no law. It is boundless freedom.
Now the question arises, what necessarily resulted from that state of things? But the only sane answer is that where freedom was boundless nothing in particular necessarily resulted.
. . .
I say that nothing necessarily resulted from the Nothing of boundless freedom. That is, nothing according to deductive logic. But such is not the logic of freedom or possibility. The logic of freedom, or potentiality, is that it shall annul itself. For if it does not annul itself, it remains a completely idle and do-nothing potentiality; and a completely idle potentiality is annulled by its complete idleness. (CP 6.215-219)

--------

Click on the following URL link for THE PEIRCE BLOG, the

central pointer and guide to Peirce resources on the web:

                  http://csp3.blogspot.com/


-------          

If you want to cancel your subscription to PEIRCE-L send a

message to the list manager at the following address:

     joseph.ransdell <at> yahoo.com

No reason need be given, just say "unsub", followed by your address


--------

Click on the following URL link for THE PEIRCE BLOG, the

central pointer and guide to Peirce resources on the web:

                  http://csp3.blogspot.com/


-------          

If you want to cancel your subscription to PEIRCE-L send a

message to the list manager at the following address:

     joseph.ransdell <at> yahoo.com

No reason need be given, just say "unsub", followed by your address

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Joseph Ransdell | 2 Jun 2010 10:00
Picon
Favicon

FW: Peirce Society: annual meeting moving to Pacific APA

 Forward for your information by Joseph Ransdell

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles S. Peirce Society [mailto:PEIRCE-SOCIETY <at> westga.edu] On Behalf
Of Robert Lane
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 10:54 AM
To: PEIRCE-SOCIETY <at> westga.edu
Subject: Peirce Society: annual meeting moving to Pacific APA

Dear Members of the Charles S. Peirce Society,

The executive committee of the Society has voted to change the  
location of the Society's annual meeting. In previous years we have  
held our annual meeting along with the meeting of the Eastern Division  
of the American Philosophical Association. Beginning in 2011, we will  
hold our annual meeting along with that of the Pacific Division of the  
APA.

Accordingly, the next annual meeting of the Peirce Society will be  
held in conjunction with the Pacific APA, in San Diego, California,  
April 20-23, 2011. At this meeting, Prof. Cheryl Misak will give her  
presidential address and the winner of the Society's annual essay  
contest will present his or her winning essay.

The Peirce Society will also sponsor a session at the next annual  
meeting of the Society for the Advancement of American Philosophy, in  
Spokane, WA, March 10-12, 2011.

The change to our meeting schedule will result in an alteration to the  
time line for our annual essay contest. In previous years, we have  
issued the call for submissions to the contest in June and set  
September 30 as the submission deadline. This year we will issue the  
call for submissions in mid-to-late September, with the submission  
deadline in late January 2011.

Please let me know if you have any questions about these changes.

Best regards,

Robert Lane
-- 
Robert Lane, Ph.D.
Secretary-Treasurer, Charles S. Peirce Society
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Department of English and Philosophy
University of West Georgia
Carrollton, GA 30118

678 839 4745
rlane <at> westga.edu
http://www.westga.edu/~rlane

-----
**
** Click on the following URL link for THE PEIRCE BLOG, which is 
** the central pointer and guide for Peirce resources on the web: 
**            http://csp3.blogspot.com/ 
** -------
**
** If you want to cancel your subscription to PEIRCE-L  
** send a message to the list manager at:   
**
**      joseph.ransdell <at> yahoo.com
**
** Just say "unsub", followed by your address

joseph.ransdell <at> yahoo.com
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Cecile Menieu-Cosculluela | 7 Jun 2010 15:08
Picon
Picon
Favicon

semiosis or “meaning-making” ?

Dear list members,

Would you say that "semiosis" could be adequately defined as "meaning-making"?

In case this basic question would need context, here's the whole passage where it came up: The sign is identified as comprising a first —called a representamen— which stands for a second —its object— to a third —its interpretant—, the latter in turn becoming a representamen of the same object to another interpretant and so on ad infinitum, thus creating an endless series of inter-related signs that Peirce referred to as semiosis or “meaning-making”.

Thanks for your lights,

Cécile

--------

Click on the following URL link for THE PEIRCE BLOG, the

central pointer and guide to Peirce resources on the web:

                  http://csp3.blogspot.com/


-------          

If you want to cancel your subscription to PEIRCE-L send a

message to the list manager at the following address:

     joseph.ransdell <at> yahoo.com

No reason need be given, just say "unsub", followed by your address

Permalink | Reply | 19 comments |
headers
Steven Ericsson-Zenith | 7 Jun 2010 21:45
Gravatar

Re: [peirce-l] semiosis or “meaning-making” ?


Dear Cécile,

This is an interesting question. My point of view may not be conventional Peircean but I believe it is
consistent with Peirce.

I would not define semeiosis as "meaning making" unless you are referring to the behavior that is the
consequence of semeiosis, consistent with pragmaticism. For me, at least, semeiosis is strictly sign making.

With respect,
Steven

--
	Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
	Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
	http://iase.info
	http://senses.info

On Jun 7, 2010, at 6:08 AM, Cecile Menieu-Cosculluela wrote:

> Dear list members,
> 
> Would you say that "semiosis" could be adequately defined as "meaning-making"?
> 
> In case this basic question would need context, here's the whole passage where it came up: The sign is
identified as comprising a first —called a representamen— which stands for a second —its
object— to a third —its interpretant—, the latter in turn becoming a representamen of the same
object to another interpretant and so on ad infinitum, thus creating an endless series of inter-related
signs that Peirce referred to as semiosis or “meaning-making”.
> 
> Thanks for your lights,
> 
> Cécile
> --------
> 
> Click on the following URL link for THE PEIRCE BLOG, the
> 
> central pointer and guide to Peirce resources on the web:
> 
>                   http://csp3.blogspot.com/
> 
> 
> -------          
> 
> If you want to cancel your subscription to PEIRCE-L send a
> 
> message to the list manager at the following address:
> 
>      joseph.ransdell <at> yahoo.com
> 
> No reason need be given, just say "unsub", followed by your address
> 

-----
**
** Click on the following URL link for THE PEIRCE BLOG, which is 
** the central pointer and guide for Peirce resources on the web: 
**            http://csp3.blogspot.com/ 
** -------
**
** If you want to cancel your subscription to PEIRCE-L  
** send a message to the list manager at:   
**
**      joseph.ransdell <at> yahoo.com
**
** Just say "unsub", followed by your address

joseph.ransdell <at> yahoo.com
Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Christophe Menant | 7 Jun 2010 22:09
Picon
Favicon

RE: [peirce-l] semiosis or “meaning-making” ?

Dear Cecile,
Despite my relatively modest knowledge of the Peircean triadic theory on sign, I would support your proposal about "semiosis" as adequately defined as "meaning-making".
The triadic approach has always looked to me as being also a chaining of meaning generations. The Third (the Intrerpretant) being the meaning generated from the First (the Sign/Representamen) by the Interpreter relatively to the Second (the Object). The generated Third becomes in turn a new First for following meaning generations by other Interpreters, potentially ad infinitum. As far as I know, the Interpreter is not that much detailed in the Peircean theory (as compared with Sign, Object and Interpretant). Other Forum participants may correct my position, but I take the Interpreter as key in the process. The Interpreter is a kind of meaning generator system, using the First as an input about the Second and delivering the Third. And the Interpreter contains the characteristics (the added value) of the system that generates the meaning. It allows to ground the meaning in the system that generates it. The sight of a predator generates a meaning “presence of danger” because the perceiving animal has a “stay alive” constraint to satisfy (characteristic of the Interpreter).
If you are interested by such an approach on meaning generation by constraint satisfaction, you can have a look at a short paper (1) that summarizes such approach and provides links on meaning generation papers, one being referenced in Arisbe (2).
All the best
Christophe Menant (http://crmenant.free.fr/Home-Page/index.HTM)
(1) http://crmenant.free.fr/ResUK/MGS.pdf
(2) http://cogprints.org/3694/ 

 
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 15:08:56 +0200
From: cecile.cosculluela <at> univ-pau.fr
To: peirce-l <at> lyris.ttu.edu
Subject: [peirce-l] semiosis or “meaning-making” ?

.ExternalClass p.ecxMsoNormal, .ExternalClass li.ecxMsoNormal, .ExternalClass div.ecxMsoNormal {margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman';} <at> page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt;} .ExternalClass div.ecxSection1 {page:Section1;} Dear list members,

Would you say that "semiosis" could be adequately defined as "meaning-making"?

In case this basic question would need context, here's the whole passage where it came up: The sign is identified as comprising a first —called a representamen— which stands for a second —its object— to a third —its interpretant—, the latter in turn becoming a representamen of the same object to another interpretant and so on ad infinitum, thus creating an endless series of inter-related signs that Peirce referred to as semiosis or “meaning-making”.

Thanks for your lights,

Cécile
--------
Click on the following URL link for THE PEIRCE BLOG, the
central pointer and guide to Peirce resources on the web:
                  http://csp3.blogspot.com/

-------          
If you want to cancel your subscription to PEIRCE-L send a
message to the list manager at the following address:
     joseph.ransdell <at> yahoo.com
No reason need be given, just say "unsub", followed by your address

Vous voulez protéger votre vie privée ? La solution avec Internet Explorer 8

--------

Click on the following URL link for THE PEIRCE BLOG, the

central pointer and guide to Peirce resources on the web:

                  http://csp3.blogspot.com/


-------          

If you want to cancel your subscription to PEIRCE-L send a

message to the list manager at the following address:

     joseph.ransdell <at> yahoo.com

No reason need be given, just say "unsub", followed by your address

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
info | 7 Jun 2010 22:56

Re: RE: [peirce-l] semiosis or “meaning-making” ?

Dear Cecile, Christophe, all,

Although i myself do agree with the views of Cecile and Christophe that
semiotics might have been aimed at meaning making, i also understand by
now that Peirce did lack the right understandings and insights to convert
sensemaking into SANE sensemaking....

I myself DO have this insights..and actually just today i posted it
online...it is a writing that was meant to be published in a book by a big
academic publisher, but in the end I decided not to go for that..unless
things change i will have it published in a next book of mine also
probably.

The direct link to my piece on Phronesis Antenarrating is this one

http://wilvon.com/download_center/index.php?PhronesisAntenarrating_WTMBerendsen.pdf

Also it can be found on www.academia.edu  <at>  my profile there, together with
some other papers i wrote for a world conference on management. Just for
people interested in more...but the piece on Phronesis Antenarrating is
really worthwhile as it really is about the most excellent sane ways of
sensemaking...

Kindest regards,

Wilfred Berendsen
The Netherlands

-----
**
** Click on the following URL link for THE PEIRCE BLOG, which is 
** the central pointer and guide for Peirce resources on the web: 
**            http://csp3.blogspot.com/ 
** -------
**
** If you want to cancel your subscription to PEIRCE-L  
** send a message to the list manager at:   
**
**      joseph.ransdell <at> yahoo.com
**
** Just say "unsub", followed by your address

joseph.ransdell <at> yahoo.com
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Cecile Menieu-Cosculluela | 7 Jun 2010 23:42
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: [peirce-l] Re: [peirce-l] semiosis or “meaning-making” ?

Thanks, Steven, for your response. This idea of semeiosis being strictly 
sign making, not meaning making, seems much more consistent with 
Peirce's conception. Semeiosis being the continuous passage of one sign 
to another, meaning may or may not be inferred from it, don't you think? 
And would anyone else care to comment on this point?

Cécile

PS: When I asked list members "Would you say that "semiosis" could be 
adequately defined as "meaning-making"?", it didn't mean I thought it 
could. Actually, I tend to doubt it strongly, and so I'm afraid I do not 
see things like Christophe or Wilfred, whose comments are interesting 
though. But I still need to make my ideas more clear on that point and I 
would appreciate it if other members  reacted ...

Le 07/06/2010 21:45, Steven Ericsson-Zenith a écrit :
> Dear Cécile,
>
> This is an interesting question. My point of view may not be conventional Peircean but I believe it is
consistent with Peirce.
>
> I would not define semeiosis as "meaning making" unless you are referring to the behavior that is the
consequence of semeiosis, consistent with pragmaticism. For me, at least, semeiosis is strictly sign making.
>
> With respect,
> Steven
>
> --
> 	Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
> 	Institute for Advanced Science&  Engineering
> 	http://iase.info
> 	http://senses.info
>
>
>
> On Jun 7, 2010, at 6:08 AM, Cecile Menieu-Cosculluela wrote:
>
>    
>> Dear list members,
>>
>> Would you say that "semiosis" could be adequately defined as "meaning-making"?
>>
>> In case this basic question would need context, here's the whole passage where it came up: The sign is
identified as comprising a first —called a representamen— which stands for a second —its
object— to a third —its interpretant—, the latter in turn becoming a representamen of the same
object to another interpretant and so on ad infinitum, thus creating an endless series of inter-related
signs that Peirce referred to as semiosis or “meaning-making”.
>>
>> Thanks for your lights,
>>
>> Cécile
>> --------
>>
>> Click on the following URL link for THE PEIRCE BLOG, the
>>
>> central pointer and guide to Peirce resources on the web:
>>
>>                    http://csp3.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
>> -------
>>
>> If you want to cancel your subscription to PEIRCE-L send a
>>
>> message to the list manager at the following address:
>>
>>       joseph.ransdell <at> yahoo.com
>>
>> No reason need be given, just say "unsub", followed by your address
>>
>>      
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----
> **
> ** Click on the following URL link for THE PEIRCE BLOG, which is
> ** the central pointer and guide for Peirce resources on the web:
> **            http://csp3.blogspot.com/
> ** -------
> **
> ** If you want to cancel your subscription to PEIRCE-L
> ** send a message to the list manager at:
> **
> **      joseph.ransdell <at> yahoo.com
> **
> ** Just say "unsub", followed by your address
>
>
> joseph.ransdell <at> yahoo.com
>
>    

-----
**
** Click on the following URL link for THE PEIRCE BLOG, which is 
** the central pointer and guide for Peirce resources on the web: 
**            http://csp3.blogspot.com/ 
** -------
**
** If you want to cancel your subscription to PEIRCE-L  
** send a message to the list manager at:   
**
**      joseph.ransdell <at> yahoo.com
**
** Just say "unsub", followed by your address

joseph.ransdell <at> yahoo.com
Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Steven Ericsson-Zenith | 8 Jun 2010 00:00
Gravatar

Re: [peirce-l] Re: [peirce-l] Re: [peirce-l] semiosis or “meaning-making” ?


Dear Cécile,

Indeed, from my point of view meaning is consequent to semeiosis but it is not what semeiosis "does." Signs
can be said to have meaning, behaviors that are the product of their processing by semeiosis. That is,
there are states of semeiosis for which there is no associated behavior other than the semeiosis itself,
states of semeiosis that make no meaning.

With respect,
Steven

--
	Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
	Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
	http://iase.info
	http://senses.info

On Jun 7, 2010, at 2:42 PM, Cecile Menieu-Cosculluela wrote:

> Thanks, Steven, for your response. This idea of semeiosis being strictly sign making, not meaning
making, seems much more consistent with Peirce's conception. Semeiosis being the continuous passage of
one sign to another, meaning may or may not be inferred from it, don't you think? And would anyone else care
to comment on this point?
> 
> Cécile
> 
> PS: When I asked list members "Would you say that "semiosis" could be adequately defined as
"meaning-making"?", it didn't mean I thought it could. Actually, I tend to doubt it strongly, and so I'm
afraid I do not see things like Christophe or Wilfred, whose comments are interesting though. But I still
need to make my ideas more clear on that point and I would appreciate it if other members  reacted ...
> 
> 
> Le 07/06/2010 21:45, Steven Ericsson-Zenith a écrit :
>> Dear Cécile,
>> 
>> This is an interesting question. My point of view may not be conventional Peircean but I believe it is
consistent with Peirce.
>> 
>> I would not define semeiosis as "meaning making" unless you are referring to the behavior that is the
consequence of semeiosis, consistent with pragmaticism. For me, at least, semeiosis is strictly sign making.
>> 
>> With respect,
>> Steven
>> 
>> --
>> 	Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
>> 	Institute for Advanced Science&  Engineering
>> 	http://iase.info
>> 	http://senses.info
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 7, 2010, at 6:08 AM, Cecile Menieu-Cosculluela wrote:
>> 
>>   
>>> Dear list members,
>>> 
>>> Would you say that "semiosis" could be adequately defined as "meaning-making"?
>>> 
>>> In case this basic question would need context, here's the whole passage where it came up: The sign is
identified as comprising a first —called a representamen— which stands for a second —its
object— to a third —its interpretant—, the latter in turn becoming a representamen of the same
object to another interpretant and so on ad infinitum, thus creating an endless series of inter-related
signs that Peirce referred to as semiosis or “meaning-making”.
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your lights,
>>> 
>>> Cécile
>>> --------
>>> 
>>> Click on the following URL link for THE PEIRCE BLOG, the
>>> 
>>> central pointer and guide to Peirce resources on the web:
>>> 
>>>                   http://csp3.blogspot.com/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -------
>>> 
>>> If you want to cancel your subscription to PEIRCE-L send a
>>> 
>>> message to the list manager at the following address:
>>> 
>>>      joseph.ransdell <at> yahoo.com
>>> 
>>> No reason need be given, just say "unsub", followed by your address
>>> 
>>>     
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----
>> **
>> ** Click on the following URL link for THE PEIRCE BLOG, which is
>> ** the central pointer and guide for Peirce resources on the web:
>> **            http://csp3.blogspot.com/
>> ** -------
>> **
>> ** If you want to cancel your subscription to PEIRCE-L
>> ** send a message to the list manager at:
>> **
>> **      joseph.ransdell <at> yahoo.com
>> **
>> ** Just say "unsub", followed by your address
>> 
>> 
>> joseph.ransdell <at> yahoo.com
>> 
>>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----
> **
> ** Click on the following URL link for THE PEIRCE BLOG, which is ** the central pointer and guide for Peirce
resources on the web: **            http://csp3.blogspot.com/ ** -------
> **
> ** If you want to cancel your subscription to PEIRCE-L  ** send a message to the list manager at:   **
> **      joseph.ransdell <at> yahoo.com
> **
> ** Just say "unsub", followed by your address
> 
> 
> joseph.ransdell <at> yahoo.com

-----
**
** Click on the following URL link for THE PEIRCE BLOG, which is 
** the central pointer and guide for Peirce resources on the web: 
**            http://csp3.blogspot.com/ 
** -------
**
** If you want to cancel your subscription to PEIRCE-L  
** send a message to the list manager at:   
**
**      joseph.ransdell <at> yahoo.com
**
** Just say "unsub", followed by your address

joseph.ransdell <at> yahoo.com
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |

Gmane