Over the past twenty years, the annual meetings of the Semiotic Society of America have tracked the growth and development of modern sign theory in American scholarship. Since 1981, the published proceedings of SSA meetings have included representative semiotic work from a wide range of disciplines and every extant -system- of semiotic thought. The papers have especially represented some of the leading intellectual descendants of C.S. Peirce and Ferdinand de Saussure in the United States and Canada. On this ground, the (...) series remains the primary record of North American contributions to sign perspectives, embracing world-wide philosophical, literary, and scientific bases for a 21st-century -doctrine of signs-. The proceedings project has consistently pursued excellent scholarship, representative diversity, and quality production. With publication of Semiotics 1996, general editor John Deely and the Semiotic Society continue the record of -representing- American semiotics. The SSA also plan to incorporate more voices from Mexico in an effort to achieve a comprehensive North American -semiotic- which is strongly linked to practical and theoretical developments across the world.". (shrink)

Chapter One Triadomany defined You shall bind them in Three Classes; according to their Classes. William Blake, Milton In a manuscript of The Quest for ...

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Wittgenstein and Critical TheoryC. W. SpinksWittgenstein and Critical Theory, by Susan Brill; xi & 169pp. Athens: Ohio University Press, 1995, $40.00 cloth, $14.95 paper.Susan Brill’s central claim for this book is that “by relying upon Wittgensteinian philosophy, literary critics will be enabled to escape the stultifying position of absolutist critical discourses without being bereft of any satisfactory means of evaluating...” (p. 2). It is a claim well chosen (...) and she gives a well executed overview of the connections between Wittgensteinian philosophy and the study of literature. Her first chapter is a lucid introduction to Wittgenstein’s heuristic, giving ample quotations and insightful guidance for even the philosophical novice. However, her chosen audience is literary critics and theorists, and she uses the Wittgensteinian corrective of descriptive investigation as a counterpoint to both traditionalist and postmodernist critical theories. Her pragmatic goal, in Wittgensteinian fashion, is to “look” at literature, [End Page 401] not “think” about it in terms of preconceiving “theory.” Those familiar with Wittgenstein will find the application of his work to literary criticism illuminating, and those unfamiliar with his philosophical methodology and ideas will get an introductory account useful for literary and critical applications.After the introductory chapter, Brill turns to specific critical approaches and some particularly Wittgensteinian twists to literature, literary theory, and criticism. First, she looks at psychoanalytic criticism which she links somewhat oddly, I think, with semiotic critical orientations—probably to offset the Gallic influence which has fascinated American literary criticism for most of the second half of the twentieth century. Then in a series of three chapters, she turns to what she calls “issues of inclusivity and exclusivity” to look at feminist theories and their literary analyses, at the problems of canonical literature and marginalized writers, and at the “deconstructive project” as compared to Wittgenstein’s descriptive one. Although these three chapters are focused on specific literary ideologies, she consistently looks for the elements of connectivity in her approach to them. Her last chapter suggests some future uses of Wittgenstein in literary theory with particular attention to New Historicism and cultural criticism.The book does have two awkward emphases arising, I think, from the particular methodology of Wittgenstein and from the fact that this is Brill’s first book. First, the Wittgensteinian concept of “game” sometimes is used so broadly by both Wittgenstein and Brill, that everything becomes a “game” and anything can be a piece, a move, a strategy, or a rule. Brill tries to tie this specifically to patterns of discourse and uses it to open up responses to literature, but what is needed is a developed definition of play particularly as it relates to aesthetic behaviors like literature. “Game” is certainly a usable structural device, but without some relationship to the goals and needs of human behavior, it tells us more about the device than the user of the device. Second, the book does tend to take critics at their own estimation, and one needs to remember descriptively that critics are a Victorian invention like corsets and morning coats and just as restrictive in design. Any folk engaged in professional discourse, particularly one engaged in its own legitimization, will tend to over-valuate their own professional worth, and one should not take them too seriously unless it is clear that their profession is doing significant damage.Of course, that question about the damaging effects of critics and philosophers motivates both Wittgenstein and Brill, and the joining of the two here will probably do good for both professions. Certainly the study will do much to bring a more open notion of theory to the study of literature. Susan Brill is a persistent scholar who has drawn together a wide net, and though her chosen task was to suggest Wittgensteinian strategies for reading literature and to caution literary critics about overinvested theories, her own literary and philosophical desire has been to be as inclusive and open as possible to the [End Page 402] dynamics of texts without losing her own value center. Scholarship would surely be a better enterprise if more did what she has done with the persistence she has shown.C. W. SpinksTrinity UniversityCopyright... (shrink)

De Interpretatione is among Aristotle's most influential and widely read writings; C. W. A. Whitaker presents the first systematic study of this work, and offers a radical new view of its aims, its structure, and its place in Aristotle's system. He shows that De Interpretatione is not a disjointed essay on ill-connected subjects, as traditionally thought, but a highly organized and systematic treatise on logic, argument, and dialectic.

In this dialogue Plato shows the pretensions of the leading sophist, Protagoras, challenged by the critical arguments of Socrates. The dialogue broadens out to consider the nature of the good life and the role of intellect and pleasure.

A proof is given that there does not exist an event, that is not already in the past for some possible distant observer at the (our) moment that the latter is "now" for us. Such event is as "legally" past for that distant observer as is the moment five minutes ago on the sun for us (irrespective of the circumstance that the light of the sun cannot reach us in a period of five minutes). Only an extreme positivism: "that which (...) cannot yet be observed does not yet exist", can possibly withstand the conclusion concerned. Therefore, there is determinism, also in micro-physics. (shrink)

Quantum theory predicts that, e.g., in a Stern-Gerlach experiment with electrons the measured spin component $S_Z = \pm \frac{1}{2}$ does not come about by an adjustment at the last moment, a forced “flipping” or “tilting” of the spin (vector), which would imply z-angular momentum exchange between particle and instrument, but will afterward appear to have had the value $\frac{1}{2} or - \frac{1}{2}$ already before the measurement. Because an electron spin cannot have components $ \pm \frac{1}{2}$ in all directions at the (...) same time, the measuring direction has a “privileged” status before the measurement, however we choose that direction, which implies a retroactive effect. A second proof of retroactivity is derived from a special case of the paradox of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen. It is strongly suggested by our result that, in essential respects, both Bohr and Einstein were right in their famous controversy about determinism and considering microprocesses “as a whole.”. (shrink)

Aristotle's treatise De Interpretatione is one of his central works; it continues to be the focus of much attention and debate. C. W. A. Whitaker presents the first systematic study of this work, and offers a radical new view of its aims, its structure, and its place in Aristotle's system, basing this view upon a detailed chapter-by-chapter analysis.By treating the work systematically, rather than concentrating on certain selected passages, Whitaker is able to show that, contrary to traditional opinion, it forms (...) an organized and coherent whole. He argues that the De Interpretatione is intended to provide the underpinning for dialectic, the system of argument by question and answer set out in Aristotle's Topics; and he rejects the traditional view that the De Interpretatione concerns the assertion and is oriented towards the formal logic of the Prior Analytics. In doing so, he sheds valuable new light on some of Aristotle's most famous texts. (shrink)

C W Evers, J C Walker; Knowledge, Partitioned Sets and Extensionality: a refutation of the forms of knowledge thesis, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume.

We abandon as redundant the assumption that there exists something more in the physical world than action quanta, which constitute the atoms of the events of which the four-dimensional world consists. We derive metric, energy, matter, etc., from action and the structure formed by the quanta. In the microworld thequantization of space so introduced implies deviations from conventional metrics that make it possible in particular to explain nonlocality. The uncertainty relations, then, in conjunction with the action-based metric, appear to play (...) an essential role in making direct physical contact between emission and absorption events (i.e., retroactivity) possible, which concretely answers Bohr's conjecture that microprocesses constitute “wholes.” All of this appears to afford a realistic explanation of wave-particle “duality,” the EPR and other quantum paradoxes, the hidden variable problem, the “collapse” of wave packets, and the wave interference mechanism with the ¦ ϕ ¦2 rule. (shrink)

A modified Young double-slit experiment proposed by Wootters and Zurek is considered in which a system P of parallel plates covered with a photographic emulsion has been set up in the region where we would normally expect the central interference fringes. Because under certain conditions P makes it possible to conclude with much more than50% certainty through which of the two slits each particular photon passed, the relevant interference pattern becomes blurred. It is proved that this implies a retroactive effect (...) because the setup of P and the interaction of photons with P appear to influence the momentum transferred to the photons by the edges of the slits at an earlier stage of the experiment. (shrink)

This paper evaluates several recent efforts to interpret the work of Nāgārjuna through the lens of modern symbolic logic. An attempt is made to uncover the premises that justify the use of symbolic logic for this purpose. This is accomplished through a discussion of (1) the historical origins of those premises in the Indian and Tibetan traditions, and (2) how such assumptions prejudice our understanding of Nāgā rjuna’s insistence that he has no “proposition” (pratijñā). Finally, the paper sets forth an (...) alternative interpretation that takes into account the literary dimensions of Nāgārjuna’s writing. (shrink)