Jack and Paul, (01)
JR
> Ontologies serve as patterns for engines that produce meaning. (02)
That's a good way to summarize a lot of complex issues in a short
sentence. In fact, it is consistent with a tutorial I'll present
at the Semantic Technology conference in June. Following is
the abstract: (03)
http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/kdp.pdf
Knowledge Design Patterns (04)
JR
> Ontologies consist of triples that foster meaning only when
> interrelated to other triples 'just so.' (05)
But I don't think that's a good way to describe ontologies.
The only reason for triples is that somebody had a particular
implementation in mind. That is a "premature optimization",
which Knuth and others have called "the root of all evil". (06)
JR
> So the analogy is about the integrity of meanings as communicated
> by an arrangement of signs. (07)
I agree. But there are many, many kinds of signs. At the end of
this note is a review of a book about semiotics. (08)
PT
> Perhaps Bucky was thinking with 'arrangements of relationships.'
>
> The subtitle of his 2-volume "Synergetics" is "explorations in the geometry
>of thinking". (09)
Bucky had a lot of good insights. In particular, I much prefer the
term 'geometry' to 'triples' -- it includes continuous structures that
cannot be constructed from triples. (010)
John (011)
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Semiotics Continues to Astonish
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:11:05 -0500
From: John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: cg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <cg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (012)
That subject line is the title of a recent collection of articles
about the life and Work of Thomas Sebeok, his contributions to
semiotics, and his relationship to C. S. Pierce. Following is
a review from Linguist List: (013)
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=4540771 (014)
Unfortunately, the book costs $150. But whether or not you buy the
book (or ask your local library to buy it), the review makes some good
points. Since it's rather lengthy, I include some excerpts below. (015)
One comment that I especially liked is the view of human language
as a "modeling system". That term captures what Wittgenstein was
trying to say with his term 'Sprachspiel' (language game), but it
has the advantage of avoiding the often misleading word 'game'. (016)
That term also explains why most words in language are ambiguous:
there is no such thing as one ideal model that can fit all possible
ways of interpreting and talking about the world. Instead of being
a defect of language, the option of using words in multiple ways
is essential for adapting a finite vocabulary to an infinite range
of possible uses. (017)
Note that the roots of all our modern languages are grounded in
the perceptions and interpretations of our stone-age ancestors.
The option of multiple meanings (or 'microsenses' to use a word
coined by Alan Cruse) enables us to adapt words from the stone age
to 21st century science, engineering, business, politics, and arts. (018)
John
___________________________________________________________________ (019)
Excerpts from a review by Jamin R. Pelkey on Linguist List: (020)
The book is divided into six parts. Part 1, composed of 19 essay
chapters on Sebeok’s scholarly contributions from the perspectives
of 18 of his closest colleagues, comprises three-fourths of the book’s
content. Part 2, “Vignettes and Stories” includes seven anecdotal
chapters of celebration and reflection, offering biographical and
(in the case of Chapter 27) autobiographical insight into his life
and work. Parts 3-4 reproduce a series of letters, including
selections from Sebeok’s correspondence with Juri Lotman of Tartu
University, Estonia. Parts 5-6 provide a listing of burial site
co-ordinates and a collection of black and white photographs of
Sebeok and colleagues... (021)
Extending the Influence of C. S. Peirce (022)
Numerous contributors (e.g., the editors’ introduction, 6-7;
Lisa Block de Behar, 39; Søren Brier, 51; Ivan Mladenov, 283;
Susan Petrilli & Augusto Ponzio, 307; Brooke Williams Deely, 374)
emphasize the vital importance of Charles Sanders Peirce’s thought
for the development of Sebeok’s transdisciplinary semiotic paradigm. (023)
Peirce held that signs, far from being fixed and static entities,
are active and processual. Sebeok’s identification of sign activity
with life processes should be understood with this in mind, as
Petrilli affirms (299). In a 1984 address, Sebeok referred to Peirce
as “our lodestar” (7). Sebeok draws on Peircean insights liberally
and explicitly. As John Deely notes (125), Sebeok also synthesized
Peircean thought with other sources... (024)
Others argue that Sebeok could have been even more attentive to Peirce
(see especially Brier 61-67, 72-73); yet, as Deely (136) argues, it
is not likely that there would be a widespread awareness of Peirce’s
semiotic (i.e., his system of and approach to signs) at all without
the efforts of Sebeok. In terms of establishing a global dialogue
on the nature and action of signs, it was “Sebeok, not Peirce . . .
who ‘turned the tide’” (140). (025)
Exposing the Pars-Pro-Toto Fallacy of Semiology (026)
One of Sebeok’s major contributions was an exposé of the part-for-whole
(pars-pro-toto) fallacy inherent in Saussure’s theory of signs,
otherwise known as “semiology”. Sebeok’s approach served to “expand
semiotic boundaries beyond the linguistic” (Mladenov, 286) to
incorporate the communication activities of non-human animals,
bacteria, plants and more... (027)
From Williams’ perspective (372), one key reason many today treat
the word ‘semiotics’ with suspicion is largely due to its unfortunate
association with a textually-bound ‘semiology’... (028)
Distinguishing Between Language and Communication (029)
Related to Sebeok’s pars-pro-toto rejection is his important
distinction between communication in general and language as
a modelling system that enables a human-specific mode of
communication in particular... (030)
Defining Biosemiotics (031)
Considering the pervasive nature of communication processes, Sebeok
held that the field of semiotics must be at least co-extensive with
life processes, including phytosemiotics (plant communication) and
zoosemiotics (animal communication) in addition to anthroposemiotics
(8, 308)... (032)
A number of unsettled semiotic-internal debates surface between the
essays, such as whether semiotics should be characterized as a
“doctrine” or a “science”... (033)
Another unsettled question that emerges is a lack of consensus on
which level of human perceptual/conceptual modelling is primarily
inclusive of language. Whether language is a primary, secondary
or tertiary modelling system depends in large part on the definition
of language to begin with, and how distinct it is kept from speech... (034)
As an overview of the current status of semiotic understanding, and as
a personal introduction to Thomas A. Sebeok for those unable to meet
him prior to his death in 2001, the volume is indispensable. “The
dynamic of semiotics is immense in scope,” writes Sebeok “seemingly
all-encompassing” (1986: x). Since, as Deely brings to our attention
(134), even experienced objects presuppose signs, to neglect semiotics
is no mere rejection of culture-bound speculation. Thanks in large part
to Sebeok’s contributions, human understanding now has a viable (and
congruent) way to bridge the chasm between nature and culture. (035)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (036)
|