RE: Is FIS in semiotics?

From: John Holgate <[email protected]>
Date: Wed 17 Jul 2002 - 06:18:39 CEST

Pedro,

You commented:

<One possible referent to consider about abduction, besides the
<philosophical conceptualizations, might be the social realm.
<It would be very interesting that we could manage to establish a family
<resemblance between the different approaches to abduction --philosophical,
<biological, social...

Since the provenance of the modern concept of abduction is often ascribed to
C S Pierce's pragmatism it would be interesting to hear from Soren or Edwina
on this one (Edwina has just done that succinctly linking philosophical abduction
to 'new interactions' between minor premisses with the sign system).

We probably need to clarify the different domain definitions a bit.

In the medical field abduction (movement of a limb away from the median
plane of the body) has a counterpart in adduction (towards the body).

How is that connected to the philosophical concept?

Pedro, I was interested whether 'adduction' also operates at the cell level -
possibly more likely than induction and deduction <:)

In philosophy, abduction (from 'apagoge' rather than 'abducere') is arguing
from a minor premiss where the major premiss is given. Adduction/abduction
represents a movement between adducing best evidence (citation) and the experiential
mapping from an accepted 'body' of knowledge (heuristics, instructions etc).
The Oslerian medical model, for example, has operated under this paradigm.
 
The classical movement of induction/deduction (between the general and the particular)
operates in the background of the abductive process. According to sociologists
like Berger and Lukacs abduction (without the dynamic coherence of a rational
dialectic) can lead to 'reification' and its converse anthropomorphism (where IMHO McLuhan was
heading by mechanicising the 'message'). If you accept the 'triadic sign' framework
of semiosis you can avoid that dilemma (just as accepting the doctrine of the
trinity solves the odd theological paradox) but that doesn't cater for the
more pentecostal (Batesonian) view of abduction:

"All thought would be totally impossible in a universe in which abduction was not expectable.
.. I am concerned with changes in basic epistemology, character, self, and so on.
Any change in our epistemology will involve shifting our whole system of abductions.
We must pass through the threat of that chaos where thought becomes impossible."
Gregory Bateson (Mind and Nature)
 
http://www.elfis.net/elfol3/abdgb.html

At this point we probably need a tag wrestling match between Bateson and Pierce
and their supporters...

With respect to 'media' clearly the Internet is a marvellous playground for abductive thinking
since major premisses are rarely challenged as we bounce between minor premisses as
we are doing right now! The Web has no Top Gun. The game is largely in the searching and mapping of received notions - an intellectual trash and treasure hunt in which the truth is 'out there somewhere' (Pedro's 'multiple 'bubbles' with almost nothing but a referent to an outside, patchy framework' like the hyperlink above).

The third meaning of 'abduction' (seduction, kidnapping, UFO's etc) which
dominates the media may not be unrelated to the other senses (or even
to James Barham's idea of 'fooling interaction' in an informational process).
Maybe Rafael's concept of 'angelia' (Botschaft or intercessionary communication)
could link this in rather nicely while avoiding the Scylla of Shannon/Miller
communication theory and the Charybdis of McLuhanism.

John C may be right in thinking that following 'abduction' may abduce us further
down the garden path but it might be an enjoyable and significant stroll.

John H

 

-----Original Message-----
From: "Pedro C. Mariju�n" [mailto:marijuan@posta.unizar.es]
Sent: Tuesday, 16 July 2002 21:32
To: Multiple recipients of list FIS
Subject: RE: Is FIS in semiotics?

Dear John C & John H --and FIS colleagues

At 10.24 11/7/02 +0200, John Collier wrote:
>>If a (possibly non-Shannonist) information theory were to adopt 'meaning'
>>does it head off for a semantic bushwalk (with Frege, Fodor, Dretske et al)?
>>It might be more fruitful for our theory to explore a resonant concept like
>>'abduction'(which has attracted Gregory Bateson, C S Pierce and the radical
>>constructivists who have occasionally hovered over our conversations).
>
>I agree with the last, wholeheartedly. I am not at all convinced it is enough,
>or even on the right track ultimately, but definitely fruitful to explore.

I would love hearing further thoughts from you two, and any interested
party, about these different approaches to (philosophical?) abduction. In
my own excursions onto biological (cellular) abduction I have always
stumbled on the conceptual-cluster problem: the parallel need to articulate
coherently several impossible concepts (function, life cycle, knowledge,
symmetry-breaking, functional void...). I wonder whether, philosophically,
something similar occurs.

One possible referent to consider about abduction, besides the
philosophical conceptualizations, might be the social realm. I mean, what
is the 'info' mission of our means of communication? How do media fabricate
'news'? Actually, the doings and workings of the famous 'media' of our
societies, that we take for granted, were brought to the attention of
scholars by Marshall McLuhan. In spite of the rather unfavorable view that
most social scientists nowadays have on his work, I believe that he was
very fertile. Particularly, in some parts of his analysis the 'abduction'
idea looms. His slogan the 'media is the message' somehow suggests about
the 'voidness' landscape that accompanies the media abduction of
news... multiple 'bubbles' with almost nothing but a referent to an
outside, patchy framework. (But probably this is too biased an
interpretation of mine).

It would be very interesting that we could manage to establish a family
resemblance between the different approaches to abduction --philosophical,
biological, social...

best wishes

Pedro

=========================================
Pedro C. Mariju�n
Fundaci�n CIRCE
CPS, Univ. Zaragoza, 50018 Zaragoza, Spain
TEL. (34) 976 762036-761863, FAX (34) 976 732078
email: marijuan@posta.unizar.es
=========================================

Received on Wed Jul 17 06:19:35 2002

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon 07 Mar 2005 - 10:24:46 CET