Band 2020, Heft 233 -

From Peirce, a sign represents something other than itself, an object, for some third; from Deleuze, a sign can create and erase an object, for some third. He makes this claim in the cinema books, without detailed explication. It is a fleeting reference to the Peircean triad developed in his semiotics; moreover, references to “objects” in Deleuze’s discussions of signs in his other work are often generic. In this essay, I explain what it means in Deleuze’s semiotics for a sign to create and erase its object. My method is to use the perspective of the object in the semiotic triad to compare Deleuze and Peirce’s semiotics. Deleuze’s sign that creates and erases its object marks a clear departure from Peirce’s semiotics. For Deleuze, like Peirce, an acquaintance with the object independent of the action of the sign is necessary for semiotics. Of most significance is that for Peirce, thinking with signs necessarily involves modifying prior knowledge of the object – meaning one’s conception of the object is a version of what was already known; while for Deleuze, thinking with signs can involve producing ideas at a second remove from the object – in turn, creating and erasing new object(s). Ultimately, this essay contributes to research on Deleuze’s cinema books by undertaking a detailed reading of a part of his discussion that has not been analyzed. Furthermore, in producing Deleuze’s concept of a sign that creates and erases its object, this essay reminds us how we think – and could think – with signs, reaffirming the importance of semiotic analysis for discussion about thinking with signs. Finally, this essay contributes to scholarship on Deleuze’s and Peirce’s semiotics.

The present paper aims to shed light on some post-oedipal moments of the Freudian-Lacanian psychoanalysis. Going beyond the stereotypical opposition between the oedipal psychoanalysis and the anti-oedipal schizoanalysis, it endeavors to reinvestigate the semiotic nature of the knotenpunkt and the sinthome by applying some Deleuzian and Bakhtinian concepts. Thus, the knotenpunkt is described as a grotesque knot bringing together some heterogeneous elements. The involved disparate components establish a rhizomatic multiplicity irreducible to a common determiner. As far as the sinthome is concerned, it is also illustrated as a grotesque knot quilting the disseminated heterogeneous orders. In contrast to the dominant conception of the symptom with a complex mode of signifying (that is mainly bound to the oedipal topography), the knotenpunkt and the sinthome hold a kind of hyper-formative mode of signifying. As a result, the latter may be regarded as pure formators irreducible to a meaning or a certain interpretation. Finally, the paper sets out to analyze and evaluate the relationship between the sinthome and the foreclosure from a semiotic perspective. Accordingly, the sinthome is explained as a reply to foreclosure which is specifically a perceptive-imperative (retroactive) contemplation (in the light of law according to the Peircean phaneroscopy) on the rhizomatic multiplicity of psychosis (the case of schizophrenia).

The aim of the present study is to evaluate Sonja Foss’s Rhetorical Schema for the Evaluation of Visual Imagery (1994) as well as reflect upon several points for further consideration; and finally suggest a renewed triadic approach as a method for analyzing art-relevant visual imagery. The triadic approach to be discussed assumes three correlative layers: the intellectual knowledge , function of the artistic content as the visual representational component, and aesthetics as modality . This study will include the analysis of a print advertisement that used an artwork as its content of visual rhetoric, and this will inform further discussions on the proposed approach. The contribution of this renewed triadic approached to the field of visual rhetoric has the advantage of expanding and possibly improving rhetorical analysis methods of visual imagery.

A widespread opinion holds that norms and codes of conduct as such can only be established via words, that is, in some lexical form. This perspective can be criticized: some norms produced by human acts are not word-based at all. For example, many norms are actually conveyed through graphics (e. g. road signs and land-use maps), sounds (e. g. the referee’s whistle), a silent gesture (the traffic warden’s signal to halt). In this article, we will focus on the norms that are created by means of drawings and can be termed “drawn norms” or “graphical norms.” Specifically, we will inquire into the phenomenon of graphical norms with particular regard to traffic signs and land-use plans, and we will discuss the philosophical and legal problems to which these phenomena give rise.

In this paper I attempt to study the notion of “folding of a semiotic continuum” in a direction of a possible application to the biological processes (the process of protein folding). More specifically, the process of obtaining protein structures (protein folding) is compared in this paper to the folding of a semiotic continuum. Consequently, peptide chain is presented as a continuous line potential to be formed (folded) in order to create functional units. The functional units are protein structures having certain function in the cell or organism (semiotic agents). Moreover, protein folding is analyzed in terms of tension between syntax and semantics.

In this article, I introduce a semiosic translation of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. The theoretical framework is Semiosic Translation , a theory that combines Peirce’s interpretive semiotics and Wittgenstein’s notions of rule-following and complex-fact. I seek to show that this approach is particularly adroit at the task of making the sometimes cryptic philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein accessible to readers. To support this assertion, I compare and analyze several canonical translations of the Tractatus with possible semiosic translations. The results show that Wittgenstein’s work throughout its different phases displays a continuity that reaches a genuine abductive peak in the Philosophical Investigations . This abductive, usage-based turn is, nonetheless, announced in the Tractatus in terms of a quest for semiotic accuracy.

Ernst Cassirer (1874–1945), Neo-Kantian philosopher of Marburg school, studies myth as a component of symbolic forms. He considers myth as the cornerstone of philosophy of culture as well as the source of such other forms as language, religion, art and science. Cassirer, applying an epistemological approach towards myths and other realms of human culture, argues that human beings experience the world through a mediated process. Of course, this mediated encounter with the world has different aspects in the evolving course of culture. These aspects are completely dependent upon the symbolic form through which man experiences his world. However, it seems what Cassirer puts forth as an explanation of the cultural evolution of mankind is basically influenced by his semiotic viewpoints. Therefore, the present article tries to find the theoretical resources of Cassirer’s thought and analyze his reasoning in this regard. Emphasizing Cassirer’s theoretical assumptions as well as his methodology, we have tried to better understand his claims about myth and other symbolic forms. It has been revealed that Cassirer’s theory is mainly shaped by his particular models of semiotic functions. Analyzing the semiotic functions of each specific form indicates that Cassirer has differentiated three independent functions. Each of these functions works on an expressive, Ausdrucken. representative, Darstellungen. or signifying Bedeutungen. basis and is respectively correspondent with myth, language, and science.

The main purpose of this article is to identify the inner human activity Peirce calls musement with the mental processes that arise through the workings of the brain’s default mode network . This network is a specific, recently anatomically defined brain system, which is most active when individuals are not focused on the external environment. In doing so, musement, which was defined by Peirce over a hundred years ago, will finally be situated within what today we understand as its neurobiological origin.

In this study I compare the work of two scholars who are important for contemporary research into the history of semiotics. The main goal of the study is to describe specific rhetorical/figurative forms and structures of persuasion between two epistemological positions that determine various possibilities in the historiography of semiotics. The main question is this: how do we understand two important metatheoretical forms of descriptions in the historiography of semiotics or the history of sign relations? The first perspective is semiology and its corollary, “structuralism,” as presented in Michel Foucault’s The Order of Things . This perspective prefers to consider history as a set of ruptures (i). The second position explores the possibility of the historical development of semiotic consciousness as presented in the works of John N. Deely (ii). The main aim of this study lies in the exploration of these two different epistemological bases – divergent bases for developing specific understandings of interconnections that hold between between semiotics, semiosis and historical processes. A goal of this paper is to demonstrate the limits and advantages of these two paradigmatic positions. The positions in question are “meta-theoretical” in the following senses such that: (i) the historical episteme is taken to be an a priori determinant of all sign-operations in a given era and is also the semiologic grid through which Foucault approaches every mode of scientific knowledge (from “science” to “economy” and beyond); (ii) the quasi-Hegelian development of semiotic consciousness based on a conception of the sign considered as a triadic ontological relation. The latter is Deely’s guiding meta-principle, through which the history of semiotics can be articulated, examined and evaluated.

Résumé Les études déjà menées depuis des années 1970 autour de la sémiotique de l’espace montrent que les fondements méthodologiques et épistémologiques de cette approche se situent bel et bien, dans la lignée de la sémiotique structurale. Pourtant, certains espaces et le sens qui y émerge en acte ne peuvent pas être réduits à un cadre théorique si restreint. Cet article se propose de montrer, à travers l’analyse d’une chambre décrite par Sohrab Sépehri (1928–1980), poète et peintre moderne iranien, comment l’explication de la production du sens dans cet espace échappe aux fondements de l’appareil théorique classique. Notre hypothèse est que cette chambre en tant qu’espace qui ne se veut plus comme un objet-valeur, ni comme un espace opératoire ou manipulateur, prend sens dans un processus interactionnel comme un mouvement tourbillonnaire qui implique le sujet, l’entoure, l’engage et le fait ainsi vivre une expérience vécue. Cet espace éprouvé devient ainsi l’espace existentiel de la présence du monde du poète. Mais selon quelles caractéristiques déterminons-nous le régime d’espace auquel appartient la Chambre bleue de Sépehri ? Comment et dans quelle mesure la Chambre qui appelle le poète sans arrêt, contribue à lui former un nouvel être au monde et à le faire avancer dans son itinéraire transcendant ? C’est à ces questions que ce texte essaiera de répondre.