Re: Is FIS in semiotics?

In reply to John Holgate on abduction:

J Holgate said:
"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?"

Edwina:
I think there are certain similarities in the use of the term,
abduction. What is similar, is the focus on the relation of the motion
(abduction, adduction) with a median plane. Consider the median plane
as the force of gravity, a general, all inclusive, mediating force.
Within semiosis, the gravitational force, that mediating generalizing
force, can be understood as Peircean Thirdness...the establishment of
normative habits. So, a force that is active, without the constraints
of the median plane/gravity/Thirdness - is abduction. I also call this
action of freedom from Thirdness, 'attraction' - and there are as we
know, different kinds of attractors. If a force doesn't find
constraint, ie, doesn't become controlled by the mediation of
gravity/Thirdness, then the energy/mass potential will rapidly
dissipate.

J. Holgate said:
"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."

Edwina:
I don't think that the major premiss is given in abduction. The
abductive process is a search for a major premiss. My view of the
minor premiss is that this is a relationship with experienced reality
(in semiosic terms, it's the Object Relation) and as you note, it's a
first step, for one begins, in the abductive process, with the minor
premiss. (A surprising fact is observed). The next step is - how do I
interpret this experience? You can do so with an already existent
major premiss (in which case, you are really operating within a
deductive interaction, for you are not questioning the validity of the
major premiss)....or...you can come up with a new major premiss.
That's abduction.

J. Holgate said:
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:

Edwina:
Agree with the first sentence. The power of induction, in my view, is
that it refuses to commit itself to a major premiss. It accepts only
probable statistical averages as its major premiss, and leaves itself
open to future change. The problem of induction is that it is
completely external. None of the three processes (induction,
deduction, abduction) should operate as isolate.
    I disagree with Berger/Lukac's view of abduction; they almost
sound as if they are denying or are skeptical of, the human capacity
for reason. Or indeed, the cosmic capacity to develop normative habits
(major premisses). What they are ignoring is, as you point out, the
triadic framework, and therefore, the development of
Thirdness/gravity/normative habits. As with most people in the social
sciences, they are operating within a Hegelian framework, which is
most certainly not triadic.

"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...

Edwina: Probably - I have no idea what the above quote from Bateson
means ie - why does a change in epistemology involve a shift in the
system of abduction(s)??? And..'thought becomes impossible"? Thought
is more complex than this scenario; it involves emotions as well as
symbols.

J. Holgate:
"avoiding the Scylla of Shannon/Miller
communication theory and the Charybdis of McLuhanism. "

Edwina:
Nice. I'm not a fan of McLuhan; he was indeed, mechanical.
Received on Wed Jul 17 16:04:54 2002