abduction

Most certainly abduction is a semiosic process, as is deduction and
induction. I consider the Sign, not a 'thing' but a process. A triadic
process operative as a syllogism: major premiss, minor premiss and
conclusion, with each other these three understood as Relational
interactions.

The deductive Sign accepts a Law (Major Premiss) and interacts with
the external world (Minor Premiss) and interprets that interaction
into a conclusion. This permits a reasonably cohesive world of
continuity of form, and thus, normative interactions.
The inductive Sign, uses a Law ,a Major Premiss - but that Law is
formed very differently from the Deductive Sign. The deudctive Law is
necessary. The inductive operates using only a statistical average as
its major premiss. Such a law ignores and therefore, permits the
existence of, deviation. All that inductive signs can do, is talk
about 'current norms'. They cannot imagine change.

Abduction, however, is one where the communal Law, that Major Premiss,
emerges, is actually constructed within the sign system itself. That
is, this process acknowledges the freedom of new laws and therefore,
new interactions of matter with matter. The most 'abductive' or free
realm, is, of course, the social realm.

As for Pedro's comment on 'how do the media fabricate 'news'. - well,
I have a problem with that. First, I'm among the crowd who don't like
McLuhan and found his 'medium is the message' a superficial and false
statement. After all, it implies several things: (1) that the
'message' exists as a closed inviolate entity which Should Not be
changed. (2) This cuts up the triadic sign into two parts: content
and conveyance or relations. I say that such a deconstruction into two
parts is only possible analytically but never in reality. The McLuhan
idea of a message is extremely mechanical; his writings were to try to
say that meaning doesn't operate in a mechanical manner. BUT - he
still set up his analysis in a mechanical framework of a dyad: content
and conveyance. And, using this dyad, he then tried to tell us that
the conveyance agent could be a Top Gun, as I call it, an intentional
force that degenerated the Truth of the Message. I simply disagree
with his analytic frame and its inevitable Top Gun result.

The Sign does not exist as an isolate 'thing' being moved along a
conveyor belt. The Sign only exists as interactional, whether it is a
chemical molecule, a biological cell or a mental concept. Think about
the people watching an accident. There is no 'mass media' involved; no
idea of a Top Gun authority to mould and change The Truth. But, each
individual watching that accident will have a different perception of
'what happened'. And, give them ten minutes, and that perception will
change; another ten minutes and the perception will then solidify and
become The Absolute Truth. Media don't fabricate news any more than
individuals 'fabricate' news.

It's been fun to watch the news about the recent 'assassination
attempt' against Chirac. Canadian news moved from mentioning that a
Canadian was among those who wrestled the individual to the ground, to
"Canadian foils assassination of Chirac'. Interviews with the
individual involved, moved from his first statements that he saw a
rifle being removed from a guitar case, and saw others attack the
individual, and his own action of grabbing hold of the bottom of the
rifle, to his being much more involved and, importantly, to the firing
of the rifle being more poised, more potentially successful, more
caring of aim - than the first accounts which suggested haphazardness.
None of this has anything to do with 'media', but with the ongoing
sign-process of interpretation, re-interpretation, becoming more
specific, more 'crisp' all the time, weeding out data which doesn't
fit into this crisp final interpretation (which data might be valid,
however)...etc.

Edwina Taborsky
39 Jarvis St. #318
Toronto, Ontario M5E 1Z5
(416) 361.0898
Received on Tue Jul 16 18:08:25 2002