Home Dialogical sign and symbolic mediation: A quest for meaning and esthetic experience
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Dialogical sign and symbolic mediation: A quest for meaning and esthetic experience

  • Yunhee Lee EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: November 5, 2015

Abstract

This paper aims to look at the dialogical character of sign in Peirce, particularly with an emotional-volitional aspect of action-sign to discern how human subjects act and control themselves by virtue of symbolic mediation, representing the dialogic relation of sign. I thus examine the concept of the Peircean symbol as Thirdness, a mediator, and a genuine sign on three levels: expression, representation, interpretation. First, symbol expresses a Quality of dialogical relation between two qualities. Second, symbol represents a dialogical relation between icon being endowed with an internal character and index being endowed with a relative character, so that the symbol represents the indexical relation of the two. Third, symbol interprets the dialogical relation, which has another name of “genuine” symbol with a logical interpretant functioning as interpretative representation. In this way, symbolic mediation is incorporated with dialogic sign relation so as to attain a triadic meaning of action in self-control, thus leading to self-identity and truth. I attempt to show these characteristics of symbolic mediation by means of cinema image as metaphoric mediator, while discussing esthetic experience of the viewer.

Funding statement: Funding: This work was supported by Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund for 2015.

References

Ayyar, Akilesh. 2014. To express it is to explain. Philosophy Now 100. https://philosophynow.org/issues/100/To_Express_It_Is_To_Explain_It (accessed 12 October 2014).Search in Google Scholar

Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1981. The dialogic imagination: Four essays, Michael, Holquist (ed.), Caryl Emerson & Michael Holquist (trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.Search in Google Scholar

Danto, Arthur C. 2013. What art is. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Deleuze, Gilles. 2008 [1964]. Proust and signs, Richard Howard (trans.). Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

de Waal, Cornelis. 2013. Peirce: A guide for the perplexed. London: Bloomsbury.Search in Google Scholar

Ehrat, Johannes. 2005. Cinema and semiotic: Peirce and film a esthetics, narration, and representation. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.10.3138/9781442672956Search in Google Scholar

Haley, Michael Cabot. 1988. The semeiosis of poetic metaphor. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kant, Immanuel. 1983. What is enlightenment?In Perceptual peace and other essays, Ted Humphrey (trans.), 41–49. Indianapolis: Hackett.Search in Google Scholar

Liszka, James. 1996. A general introduction to the semeiotic of Charles Sanders Peirce. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Mladenov, Ivan. 2006. Conceptualizing metaphors: On Charles Peirce’s marginalia. London & New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203008218Search in Google Scholar

Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1966. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce, 8 vols., Hartshorne, C., Weiss, P. & Burks, A. W. (eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Reference to Peirce’s papers will be designated CP followed by volume and paragraph number.]Search in Google Scholar

Peirce, Charles S.. 1998. Essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings, vol. 2 (1893–1913), Peirce Edition Project (eds.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [Reference to vol. 2 of Essential Peirce will be designated EP 2.]Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2015-11-5
Published in Print: 2016-1-1

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton

Downloaded on 19.11.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/sem-2015-0123/html
Scroll to top button