We are amidst a huge paradigm shift. Semiotics is the way forward.
The root of the meaning crisis lies in a misconception about the nature of logic. Charles Peirce discovered that logic and reasoning are not computational but involve aesthetical judgments and sentiments. Therefore, we should understand our experience as a continuous stream of analog information, mediated by innumerable fluctuating signs.
Peirce has gifted us with semiotics, a logical tool to conceptualize this stream of information. It is nothing less than the very logic of reality, and it is at our disposal. But, in order to truly apply semiotics, we must accept the metaphysical reality of signs. This is the paradigm shift, the new Copernican revolution. This is the way how meaning and purpose can be brought back to the world and into our lives.
The logic of the universe is at our disposal. What will you do with it?
Пікірлер
Ok I did not expect this. Very good and informative video. Definitely will watch again as I did not catch everything, but the main message was clear. I would be interested in hearing some counter arguments and your reactions to it.
Didn't watch the video, but nihilism also solves nihilism.
Markus you are so good at presenting this material. Also the fact that you have only 1.1K subscribers boggles the mind as I think you are up there with the best educational channels. In addition I would expect more interest given the topic of Peirce & his Semiotics itself seems important for our time as a mediator across the perspectives of intellectual history.
You remind me of Peirce's classification of the sciences: Metaphysics cannot prescind of Logic. Excellent video, scientific inquiry can definitely be a source of meaning (transcendental, if you want). Even the quantum effects of what Peirce called the quasi-mind follow a certain kind of logic. But isn't Logic (or Semiotics), as a field of study, different than the "logic" we find in the patterns? Yes, we are immersed in an infinite semiotic web, but there are Interpretants, or logically consistent effects of different kinds, and there are Interpreters, who might aspire through evolution and learning to study and practice Logic. I mean, that "logic" we are immersed in might not be as limited as our Logic.
it'd be cool if you made a video on existential graphs "There are countless Objects of consciousness that words cannot express; such as the feelings a symphony inspires or that which is in the soul of a furiously angry man in [the] presence of his enemy. But all these can perfectly be expressed in Graphs." - CSP
Thank you for this wonderful video.
Great video can you tell us more about Peirce realism
There is some discussion of that theme in the interview with Roger Ward here: kzread.info/dash/bejne/c3iKusOth9TPXco.html Also check out my video on the distinction between Existence and Reality: kzread.info/dash/bejne/aZep0c-dj6S3eMo.html
This reminds me of Hegel. Firstness would be Pure Being, which is absolutely indeterminate. Secondness would be Determinate Being, and Thirdness would be Becoming, which is a mediation between Pure Being and Pure Nothing and a transition to Determinate Being.
Hegel and Peirce share many similarities, but they also have significant differences. Hegel considered 3rdness (Spirit/Geist) to be the ultimate foundation of everything. In contrast, Peirce viewed all three categories as equally important.
Always a pleasure to listen/watch the two of you discussing this. 🙂 ... Vinicius, you mention Peirce's perfect sign. ... Heraclitus's fire 😉 ""It ever was, and is, and shall be, ever-living fire, in measures being kindled and in measures going out.” ... I've been writing about this same thing recently, and this is exactly why I use the banner image I use on all of my sites.
Hi Markus, .... I saw your note in comments here saying that you are recently rethinking the four phases, with interest in phasing from subconscious to conscious. I too have been focusing lately on the differences between phenomenology and phaneroscopy. I think there are treasures to be found in understanding hypostatic abstraction and reification, and then examining these concepts alongside inductive, abductive, and deductive reasoning. I also have some other ideas that I can't share here because they are proprietary to the work I am now doing with artificial intelligence. ... I have been writing a bit about this on my Facebook page, and I expect I will eventually post something on my Medium site. .... I so appreciate having you as a fellow traveler on this always intriguing journey. 🙂
huge thank you for this content! I'm doing a course on semiotics of art, I was initially very confused but now I feel engaged and intrigued to delve deeper.
Excellent class, very didatics.
a m a z i n g
Sensational!
I hope his new book has an English translation. Thanks for the great conversation.
Thanks for the comment! As I understand, the book will be published also in English.
I love everything about the idea they truth is social and that individuality is ignorance so I would like to see it being developed more.
Noted! That is truly an interesting idea.
??????😅😅
Thank you so much for this! I am learning Peircean semiotics on my own...but now with your videos!
Man took 4 minutes to say first impressions.
This is amazing, thank you clarifying the four phases. I think the last example you made with the listening a podcast, while driving, is perfect. Now I was pondering just now about dreaming. When you dream there's perception and experience, but understanding and sharing are pretty much vague and blurry. What are you thoughts on that?
I guess lucid dreaming makes the understanding a little more available, not sure about sharing.
I am currently rethinking the meaning of these phases. As a big change the perception phase is not anymore fully unconscious, but this is still very much work in progress. But your question about dreams. Dreams would be very much about the perception phase, as qualities and suggestions are freely flowing without a solid connection to the existent world.
Another thought. ..... Something to always be aware of in the nominalistic twists and turns of the history of human thought over the past few millennia. ... Keep this in mind, and it will help one navigate the confusing doctrines that others want one to subscribe to. ...... Watch for how 'embodied' is defined or described and watch for whether or not it is 'reduced'. .... Embodied Thirdness cannot be 'reduced' to particulars (parts). .... This gets a little murky when also trying to associate this with an 'instance' (instantiation). All of this has to do with how Thirdness is 'represented' in the manifested (physical) world. We must remember that reality is not static (fruit rots and iron rusts). Reality is a dynamic process! ✨ .... Here are two definitions of 'embody'. The way Peirce used it, and the Husserl/Merleau-Ponty, eidetic reduction method (Platonic/Cartesian). em·bod·y /əmˈbädē/ be an expression of or give a tangible or visible form to (an idea, quality, or feeling). "a team that embodies competitive spirit and skill" 2. include or contain (something) as a constituent part "the changes in law embodied in the Freedom of Information Act"
Thank you for this dissection of a term. Generality (3rdness) is thus something that cannot be exhausted by its instances (2ndness). I've conceptualized generalities as forces that guide and govern their instances, so that 3rdness is the one with agency in a sense.
@@PhiloSign Agency that is not separate (nominalistic), ... because its growing identity and awareness is developed and dependent upon the flow of Logos in immanent and transcendent community (and I would say more than just human community). ... This understanding circles back to semiosis and the momentum it creates in the autopoiesis of manifested living and non-living systems. As a living example, think of a murmuration of starlings (birds who read and respond to Thirdness). .... Glorious and Mystical Cosmos. ✨🙂
Wonderful conversation! Just a thought. .... About 'evil thoughts' ..... In order to process experience and grow (evolve), we need adversarial thought. Contradiction and negation are huge in Peirce's perspective and understanding of Logos. I agree with him on this. Consider Heraclitus's Unity of Opposites in Logos. .... By the way, not many people know this about me. but my path also took me to being very involved in church for a while too. I even taught bible study for a while. I also studied world religions in college. ... To understand this understanding that I found out later aligns so well with Peirce, I suppose it's not unusual to have had some similarities in our paths.
Great insights. So, in the same vein as there needs to be some external brute force (2ndness) for us to orient and develop our habits, there must also exist evil for us to recognize and learn what is good.
@@PhiloSign I'm not a fan of the word 'evil', since it is so connected to the nominalist vein that runs through certain religious doctrines. I absolutely do not agree with Protestant Christianity's definition of evil, because it is directly associated with the origin of nominalism, which was birthed because the Church wanted to profess and instill in doctrine that God's Will could selectively damn an individual simmer or save an individual saint. I wrote about the history of this in my essay 'There is No 'I' without the 'Not I''. ... So no, I do not believe in THAT concept of 'evil'. I understand and point to the inherent negation that finds its ground in polarity, contradiction, and opposites. ... I never use the word 'evil' unless I am explaining the history of that concept. ... Fleshing out the differences in these perspectives is definitely a deep dive. 😉
Always wonderful to see and read your work. 😊 .... I've been hard at work myself. We approach these topics from different angles, but with the same goals in mind. Cheers to you, my friend
Thank you ! :)
❤❤❤
Great playlist, thank you for your effort 😊 Btw, is there an email where can I contact you?
Thank you! Yes, my email address is in my channel-info.
Saint Thomas Aquinas says Faith is a first principle, we derive all from the account of the First Truth. Faith is Firstness.
Peirce says that the First Rule of Reason is that "in order to learn you must desire to learn." This requires faith and hope that the universe is knowable and that there is Truth to be found. So, I think it is right to understand faith as a first principle. I wrote about this subject in Substack: philosign.substack.com/p/three-virtues-of-inquiry
Hi, thanks for video, quite informative. I want to say I'm not sure about describing the "here and now" in the category of secondness since there isn't really a way to describe the inmediate now, when you think about the now is already the immediate past. I think it fits better in the firstness since it is ungraspable, and yet is always present.
Thanks for the comment! That is certainly one way to approach the issue. However, 2ndness is in a way also ungraspable as it is an individual event, a snapshot. The experience of something graspable always requires 3rdness, as it must be coherent and continuous. With the "here and now" I meant the "thisness", that something is here and now forcefully present. Peirce describes 2ndness as "anything’s being that which another makes it to be here and now.".
@@PhiloSign that sounds reasonable, I have yet to GRASP what does he really mean by his categories! Thanks for the response
This was a very stimulating interview that made some significant notions clear to me.
Just found this channel, thanks a lot! I just discovered Peirce a few months ago ❤
Welcome to the channel! I'm glad you're here and interested in Peirce's work. If you have any questions about Peirce's ideas, feel free to reach out. Enjoy exploring!
Cool discussion. I've been wanting Dr. Ward's book ever since it came out. Alas, it is way too expensive. Maybe someday.
It was dense, but a good read, full of inspiring ideas. I think Ward's argument that religion was the driving force for Peirce is pretty convincing.
Are the refeerences for "sense musing" afailable for sharing?
Do you mean the diagrams?
Get to the point man.
Opinion on Bernardo Kastrup? I have found similarities between Peirce's metaphysical Semiotics and Kastrup's Analytical Idealism, and I believe Peirce's metaphysical semiotics could mesh pretty well with BK's theory of the Disassociative Boundary.
I'm not familiar with Kastrups work, but there is probably a lot of overlap. I have to watch an interview or two, to give you a better answer.
Thank you alot !!! KZread has few lessons in semiotics
I think when Sam Harris says that humans are “open,” I think he means that we are just as extrinsically determined as we are intrinsically
Could a determinist afford to keep modal logic? Simply in terms of language, what is it that a determinist’s words would refer to when they would speak of a possible world?
Interesting point. Is the whole idea of representation something illusory for the determinist?
FATNESS
This is the best explanation i've found until now
Is it signs all the way down?
Yes.
Distraction is bound to to a frustrated act of will either self consciously or imposed by another - this points to a core problematic: between causality and difference.
I too have wrestled with how to characterize the semiotic perspective. On the one hand, it's like a fundamental paradigm shift... like when you realize the hero is the villain. On the other hand, it's exactly how we all behave. Relations ARE real, purpose IS real, love IS real. So we shouldnt be surprised, and it doesnt take any special skill to experience... it's the immediate default. But we've been raised in this moment of modernist nominalist dualism, and trained to conceptualize that Matter is really real and everything else is pseudo-real, or useful fictions. The jarring nature of the paradigm shift is in seeing what is right under our noses. The Objective World is the real thing that we all experience, and matter is but a footnote about the medium... like the signage at an art gallery which indicates oil, acrylic, pastels, etc. Sure it's interesting and relevent, but for heavens sake, look up!
Nicely put!
Represents is spurious and you should try harder not to use the language of dynamic causality.
I pray it's enough.
Truth is what ends this mess and I've told the truth.
so incredibily helpful, thank you! could you recommend literature to cite?
Thank you! Here is a list of books that I have found very useful: Vinicius Romanini - Minute Semeiotic Speculations on the Grammar of Signs and Communication based on the work of C. S. Peirce T.L. Short - Peirce's Theory of Signs Paul Forster - Peirce and the Threat of Nominalism
Thank you, great explanations
I like your approach when explaining how thinking is a participatory experience of inferencing. I think it correlates well why rationalism was problematic when postulating an absolutism of truth, and why the scientific method of participating in the world of experiences and inferring truths have given us the most successful system for knowledge. I'm a big fan of semeiotics for its capacity to teach philosophy, epistemology, logic, science, and communications, without people realizing what they're actually learning. It's like people listening to music don't realize they're doing calculus and enjoying it. Keep up your excellent work, you definitely have a great way to present the discipline so everyone can get something out of it and increase general awareness.
How does sadness or depression fit into the Peircean triangle? It's strange because, while it is an "elementary" negative emotion, it is also the opposite of "anger", which is also an elementary negative emotion. Anger causes us to lash out to change something, broadly speaking, while sadness causes us to retreat within.
I feel that using emotions in the archetectonics of Peirce is an ambiguous choice to serve examples. Emotions are intrinsically related to thirdness, but can become firstness in a different system of inference.
paper title?
Hi Markus. It is wonderful how you express your genuineness and down-to-earth honest perspective that is surely very welcoming to those who are new to exploring Peirce and semiosis. You are so right that it is important for those of us who have been familiar with this understanding for so long to remember the comprehension challenges in the beginning. I am always alert and open to new ways of encouraging dialogue with others on this journey. It is true that there are only a handful of us trying to share this understanding with the general public. Perhaps we should consider holding dialogue meetings to discuss ways to approach this. I'm certainly open to that idea. ... Anyway, it's lovely to listen to you share your genuine and caring self. ✨
Sounds great!
@@PhiloSign I'll send you an email. :)