DOCSLIB.ORG

John Deely Karen Haworth Terry Prewitt

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
John Deely Karen Haworth Terry Prewitt S,Mrorrcs 1989 EditedbY JohnDeelY Loras College Karen Haworth UniversitYof WestFlorida Terry Prewitt UniversitYof WestFlorida UNIVERSITY PRESS OF AMERICA @ Lanham' New York' London TRANSCENDENCEAND THE LOSS OF THE SEMIOTIC SELF RobertS. Corrington The PennsylvaniaState University When semioticexplores the nature of the human self, it employsconcepts and categoriesderived from a more generalsemiotic framework. While this is not always inap-propriate, such a strategy is inclined to clairn too much for the efficacy and scobbof sign theory as it appliesto the elusive nature of the self. The attempt to locateso-ca--Ued anthroposemiosis within the largerbiological structures of zoosemiosis runs the risk of effacing those traits of the human processthat are distinctive among the living ordersof the world. The omnivorousquality of semiotictheory is no where more eviient than in its analysesof the basicfeatures of the human process.What is neededis a more generic anilysis that remainssensitive to thosedimensions of the person that cannot be rendered into semiotic terms, even while retaining the legitimatesemiotic dimensionsof the self. It is possible,of course, to exhibit those featuresof the self that are both directly and indirectly serniotic.But such an analysis,if itfails to acknowledgethe pon er"of the ontologicaldifference and the fitful tracesof transcendence,remains onesidedand possiblydeitructive of the religiouscore of the self. In this context the ontologicaldifference pertainsto the radical and unbridgeabledifference between semios-isand the clearingwithin which sign productionand interpretationmust occur (Corrington 1988).Mori importantly, the ontologicaldifference is manifest in the pre-seriiotic potenciesof nature that make any order-specific meaningpossible in itre first place. Put in more traditional metaphysicalterms, the ontological difference is that belweennaturanaturata(naturenatured) andnaturanaturans (rlatute naturing). From the semioticperspective, nature naturedcorresponds to the innumerablesigns and cOdesof the world, whereasnature naturing correspondsto the pre-fOrmal potenciesthat emPowersemiosis. Our first concern is to delineatethe three semiotic orders pertinent to the human processand to demarcatethem from the fourth and non-semioticorder. The first thr'eeorders participate in the ontologicaldifference in a fragmentedand muted fashion while the fourth order emergesfrom out of the heart of the ontological difference. In the first order, the public aspectsof the self can be analyzedin terms 339 340 SEMIOTICS1989 of the modesof semioticcommunication available to the community of interpreters. Sucha community welcomesthe sign systemsdeposited in eachof its membersand has mechanismsfor making such iign material available to the larger community (Corrington 1987a).In the secondorder, the private dimensionsof the self canbe analyzedin terms of the life of introspectionand its endlessg€neration of interpre- tanti. While no "first self' or "first sign" can be isolatedby introspection,lines of relevanseare isolatedthat give somesense of the generalcontour of self identity'In the third order, the depth dimensionof the self can be exploredthrough an analysis of the complexesand archetypesthat govern and mold phylogeneticevolution. The archetypesof the collectiveunconscious are themselves semiotic systems and represent powerful frameworks within and through which the self graspsits own inner being ind the various meaning horizons of personaland social life (Corrington 1987). Together, thesethree orders, namely, the public, the introspective,and the arche- typll, represent the domains within which semiotic theory can attain some clarity cbncerningthe meaningof the human process.It is crucial that a generalsemiotic develop conceptsrich enough to articulate and exhibit these three orders,both separaielyand in consort.More importantly, semioticmusi locateits understanding of the humanprocess within the larger ontologicaland phenomenologicaldimensions of nature. Thesefeatures are manifest on the nether side of thosesemiotic systems and eventsthat standbefore experience. In what follows, I will briefly detail themain featuresof eachof thesethree orders to preparethe way for a fourth type of analysis that will show the ultimate limits of a semioticapproach to the self. This will in turn reveal severaldimensions of transcendenceand their internal relation to the lossof the semioticself. The public self, that is, the self in the first order, emergesfrom social interaction and carries forward innumerable sign systemsthat have their own inner dynamismand history.As notedby JosiahRoyce, the public or socialself is a product oi socialcontrast between the nascentI and the all pervasivenot-I (Royce l9l3). The contour of the self unfolds through an elaborateprocess of semiosisin which the individual entersinto alreadyestablished sign series and their interpretants.The social world surrounding the individual is constituted by an actual infinite of actualand possiblesigns. Self-identity, alwaysshifting and fraught with tension,is to a large extent, a pioduct of socialsemiosis. Insofar asthe processesof socialsemiosis remain unconsciousor pre-thematic, the self lives out of an identity that is derivativeand possiblydestructive. When Heideggeruses the metaphorof "fallenness",he implies, itUeit iit strikingly different language,that socialsemiosis is a ubiquitousand silent power that corrodesthe uniquenessand possibleautonomy of the self. The public self prevailsat the intersectionof innumerablecommunities, some primary but most secondaryand pre-thematic.The individual strugglesto integrate thesecompeting or augmentingcommunities in order to attain a stablecontour. A given communiiy is constitutedby an endlessseries of interpretantsthat havetheir own codesand inner momentum.Sign seriesare dynamic orders that have internal trajectoriesmanifest in the clusteringof sign material.It is important to stressthat the signsof community are both natural and conventionalbut in different respects. Many semiotic frameworks overstressthe scope and force. of conventionalsigns thereby ignoring the more pervasivenatural orders that give birth to and validatesign systemi.As a risult, signs are seento be cultural artifacts with no extra-cultural referents.Consider the claimsof Eco (1976:66 & 67): RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS TExT/Corrington 341 Every attemptto establishwhat the referent of a sign is forcesus to define tlie referent in terms of an abstract entity which moreover is only a cultural convention.. What, then, is the meaningof a term? From a semioticpoint of view it can only be a cultural unit' This emphasison the manipulativeand conventionaldimension of semiosismakes it Officulf to understand the natural enabling conditions of public life' Is the public self merely the battlegroundof cultural codesor is it the'place' where both natural and conventional signi struggle for transparencyand someform of validation? The latter alternative mikes more sensein that it enables semiotic to get clear on the potiticat and structuralpossibilities latent within communaltransaction. In a striking iense,the conventionalistview producesa kind of political paralysisand ignoresthe nutu.it potenciesthat pervadeand gorrertrthe public self. A genuinecultural critique analysis of arbitrary cultural codes. is replaied' by an aesthetic As noted,the public self ii the locusof intersectingmeaning horizons and must struggleto integratecompeting sign systems.Most personslive in what Roycecalled "natiial comminities" that are rarely, if ever, self-conscious'However, within the heart of the pre-thematicnatural community lies the latent power of the community of interpretation that transformsnatural and conventionalsigns into. consciousand circumstribed interpretants that can be atalyzed and judged. The public self Oro"t.O-"r its "fallenness"insgfar aS it enterS into an emergent COmmUnityOf interpretation and breaksfree from the semioticopacity andinertia^of the natural community.The communityof interpretersis emancipatoryand openfor novel forms of semiosis.Codes and their attendantsigns are brought into methodic interaction with other semioticpossibilities thus expandingthe scopeand subtletyof the public r.fi. iftir processis semiotic through and through and essentialto the public self's well being. Th6 transitionfrom a natural to an interpretivecommunity runs parallelto the transformation within the introspective self. In the second order of the human same from opacity process,the interpretantsof inner life undergo the ^movement io*utd ittu*ination and self-consciousappraisal. It is a truism that the introspective self is to a largo extent a product of the public self. But the correlationbetween the public and the private orders is far more dialectical and involves the movement Lackward and forward betweensocial semiosis and introspection.The introspective self becomesthematically self-transparent insofar as it participatesin the unfolding oi ttr" of int-erpreterswho provide the measurewithin which self-con- sciousness"o--unityattainJsome form of validation.By the sametoken, the nascentcommunity of interpretationderives much of its richnessfrom the projectedwealth of individual sign systems. how an artist interpreters who externalize introspective -Consider. externalizesintrospective signs through an aestheticshaping of publicly available media of expression.The inierpretiveiommunity addsto its scopeand interpretive power wheneverit integratessuch sign systems' ' The introspective-selfis
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Quid Sit Postmodernismus?
    Quid Sit Postmodernismus? John Deely Early in his career Maritain wrote a book whose title haunted him through the remainder of that career: Antimode rne. 1 This was actually quite an interesting book, but th:: rhetmic of its title proved more than sufficient to defeat its message. More than half a century later, Brooke Williams posed the question in terms of Jacques Maritain: Antimodern or Ultramodern?, demonstrating that Maritain himself considered himself, in his own terms, the latter rather than the former. 2 But what does all this mean? Contemporary philosophy considers itself not modern but postmodern, at least in what concerns the essential questions of ontology and epistemology, which is to say, in what concerns philosophy itself as transcending "fads and fashions," in what concerns whatever is perennial. What I would like to explore in this paper is the extent to which Maritain 's "antimodernity" and "ultramodernity" meet the requirements of postmodernism in philosophy, and how postmodernism might be seen to relate to the Latin sources on which Maritain consistently drew. l. WHICH LATIN SOURCES? We face a problem concerning the sources right at the outset, and it is one on which each of us must make up our minds. When it comes to the understanding of St. Thomas Aquinas, is it to be allowed that there are even to be such a thing as sources other than the writings ofThomas himself? And if it is a question of philosophy in the writings of Aquinas, how serious are we to take St. Thomas' own injunction that authority is the weakest form of philosophical argument? ' Jacques Maritain, Antimoderne (Paris: Revue des Jeunes, 1922).
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Semioethics Interviews2 I: John Deely
    53 “TELL ME, WHERE IS MORALITY BRED?”1 THE SEMIOETHICS INTERVIEWS2 I: JOHN DEELY April 7, 2009 The actors: John Deely (hereafter ‘JD’) and Morten Tønnessen (hereafter ‘MT’). The scene: An apartment by Raekoja Plats (Town Hall Square), Tartu (where Deely was a visiting professor the spring term of 2009) * * * MT: My impression is that semioethics first of all concerns the foundation of ethics, or of moral responsibility. Would you agree with that? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 The current work has in part been carried out as part of the research projects "Dynamical zoosemiotics and animal representations" (ETF/ESF 7790) and "Methods of biosemiotics" (ETF 6669). 2 The author’s work with semioethics started out a little before the 9th World Congress of the International Association for Semiotic Studies, Helsinki/Imatra 2007 (June 11-17th). After I presented a pointed critique of Susan Petrilli’s framing of semioethics during my talk ‘Where I end and you begin: The threshold of the self and the intrinsic value of the phenomenal world’, Petrilli invited me to partake in a dialogue on the topic. This article represents the first literal outcome of such a dialogue – here with John Deely, who has joined Susan Petrilli and Augusto Ponzio in their endeavor by grounding the notion of semioethics in philosophical terms. Three more interview articles involving Deely is planned, on the basis of recorded talks dating from April and May 2009. In the second volume of his Poinsot trilogy – which happened to be published ahead of the first volume – Deely (2008: vi) stipulates that “[t]he implications for ethics as ‘semioethics’ will appear in our third and concluding volume, and require further development in volumes devoted to the challenge of a semiotic understanding of responsibility.” The third volume of that trilogy is entitled Peirce & Poinsot: The Action of Signs from Nature to Ethics (cf.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction: an Evolutionary History of Biosemiotics
    Chapter 1 Introduction: An Evolutionary History of Biosemiotics Donald Favareau Abstract1 The present chapter is intended to provide an introductory overview to the history of biosemiotics, contextualizing that history within and against the larger currents of philosophical and scientific thinking from which it has emerged. Accordingly, to explain the origins of this most 21st century endeavour requires effectively tracing – at least to the level of a thumbnail sketch – how the “sign” con- cept appeared, was lost, and now must be painstakingly rediscovered and refined in science. In the course of recounting this history, this chapter also introduces much of the conceptual theory underlying the project of biosemiotics, and is therefore intended to serve also as a kind of primer to the readings that appear in the rest of the volume. With this purpose in mind, the chapter consists of the successive examination of: (1) the history of the sign concept in pre-modernist science, (2) the history of the sign concept in modernist science, and (3) the biosemiotic attempt to develop a more useful sign concept for contemporary science. The newcomer to biosemiotics is encouraged to read through this chapter (though lengthy and of necessity still incomplete) before proceeding to the rest of the volume. For only by doing so will the disparate selections appearing herein reveal their common unity of purpose, and only within this larger historical context can the contemporary attempt to develop a naturalistic understanding of sign relations be properly evaluated and understood. 1 Pages 1–20 of this chapter originally appeared as The Biosemiotic Turn, Part I in the journal Biosemiotics (Favareau 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • Semiotics: Thought and Contributions of John Deely Seminar Syllabus
    SEMIOTICS: THOUGHT AND CONTRIBUTIONS OF JOHN DEELY SEMINAR SYLLABUS [FALL 2020] DESCRIPTION In the 2010 Routledge Companion to Semiotics, the entry for John Deely begins: While Peirce is acknowledged as the greatest American Philosopher, John Deely (b. 1942), in his wake, is arguably the most important living American philosopher and is the leading philosophers in semiotics. An authority on the work of Peirce and a major figure in both contemporary semiotics, Scholastic realism, Thomism and, more broadly, Catholic philosophy, Deely’s thinking has demonstrated how awareness of signs has heralded a new, genuinely ‘postmodern’ epoch in the history of human thought. This “postmodernism”, which will be a theme throughout the seminar, is not the post-structuralist movement of the 20th century, but rather a moving- past modernity which is affected principally by a retrieval of scholasticism, and especially the late scholastic work of John Poinsot, also known as John of St. Thomas. Crucial to this retrieval, and crucial to the understanding of semiotics, is the notion of relation. Too long ignored or mistaken as to its nature, a successful retrieval and advance of our knowledge of relation is necessary to understanding the action of signs. For, by relation, the action of signs scales across the whole universe and unites nature and culture—or, at least, shows the possibility of such coherence. Thus, the major contributions to semiotics given by Deely, which will be covered in this seminar, are the proto- semiotic history, an expanded doctrine of causality, the retrieved and clarified notion of relation, the concept of physiosemiosis, the continuity of culture and nature, the notion of purely objective reality, and the real interdisciplinarity which semiotics fosters.
    [Show full text]
  • From the Sign to the Passage: a Saussurean Perspective
    Texto ! Textes et cultures, vol. XX (2015), n°1 From the Sign to the Passage: A Saussurean Perspective William J. CARRASCO Hunter College, CUNY One could reasonably argue that a genuine understanding of Ferdinand de Saussure’s conception of linguistics began 1996 with the “discovery” of his orangery manuscripts, made widely available in French in 20021 and in published in English in 2006 under the title Writings in General Linguistics (WGL). One could just as easily claim that he was already well understood by many and that the discovery of these writings has only strengthened their arguments. Either way, the progressive discovery of his posthumous writings today – and the extensive philological and hermeneutic efforts that this involves – is currently permitting us to develop new hypotheses both on Saussure’s project and its incompletion (Rastier 2003a: 24). One of these developments is the progressive shift away from the sign as a unit of semiotic description in favor of the passage. The perspective presented here has been developed over that last few decades, primarily in the works of François Rastier2. Despite having published a huge corpus of linguistic studies from phonetics to German legends, Saussure is still mostly known for a book he never wrote, the Cours de linguistique générale (CLG) published in 1916. Having been transposed through three different textual genres (i.e., from lecture notes to oral lectures to student notes to the edited manuscript), it is essentially is a “third- hand” work (Rastier 2003a: 5). It is therefore no wonder that the discovery of his writings in 1996, having removed these transpositions, has permitted us to better understand the kind of linguistics he was envisioning as well as the extent to which he has been misunderstood by so many of his critics and fans alike.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Article (PDF)
    2013 · Volume 196 · NUMBeR 1/4 Semiotica Journal of the International Association for Semiotic Studies / Revue de l’Association Internationale de Sémiotique Special issue On and beyOnd significs: centennial issue fOr VictOria lady Welby (1837–1912) editoR-iN-chief/ Book ReView editors/ RédacteuR-eN-chef compteS ReNduS Marcel Danesi Paul Perron Program in Semiotics and (Coordinator/Coordinateur) Communication Theory E-mail: [email protected] Victoria College Paul Colilli University of Toronto Claudio Guerri Toronto, Ontario M5S 1K7 Frederik Stjernfelt Canada Kim Sung-do Phone (416) 585-4412 E-mail: [email protected] cooRdiNators/ cooRdiNatRiceS Associate editoR/ Caterina Clivio RédacteuR adjoiNt Vanessa Compagnone Stéphanie Walsh-Matthews Stacy Costa E-mail: [email protected] Alison Mann AssiStaNt editoR/ AssiStaNt à la RédactioN Paolo Ammirante E-mail: [email protected] editoRial committee/ comité de RédactioN Myrdene Anderson Prisca Augustyn Paolo Balboni Marcello Barbieri Arthur Asa Berger Mohamed Bernoussi Per Aage Brandt Patrizia Calefato Le Cheng Paul Cobley John Deely Umberto Eco Robbie B. H. Goh André Helbo Anne-Marie Houdebine Kalevi Kull Solomon Marcus Dragana Martinovic Frank Nuessel Jerzy Pelc Susan Petrilli Roland Posner Eddo Rigotti Andrea Rocci Shi-xu Eero Tarasti Bill Thompson Giovanna Zaganelli Yiheng Zhao iNTERNATIONAL aSSOCIATION FOR SEMIOTIC STUDIES Officers Of the assOciatiOn PreSideNt Eero Tarasti, Finland [email protected] hoNoRaRy PreSideNtS Umberto Eco, Italy Jerzy Pelc, Poland Roland
    [Show full text]
  • A Study by Umberto Eco and His Colleagues Onsign the Systems History Studies of Early 46(2/3), Zoosemiotics 2018, 383–391 383
    A study by Umberto Eco and his colleagues onSign the Systems history Studies of early 46(2/3), zoosemiotics 2018, 383–391 383 A study by Umberto Eco and his colleagues on the history of early zoosemiotics: Commentary and bibliography Kalevi Kull Department of Semiotics University of Tartu Jakobi 2, Tartu 51005, Estonia e-mail: [email protected] Abstract. The article provides a commentary on Umberto Eco’s text “Animal language before Sebeok”, and an annotated bibliography of various versions of the article on ‘latratus canis’ that Eco published together with Roberto Lambertini, Costantino Marmo, and Andrea Tabarroni. Keywords: cognitive semiotics; history of biosemiotics; medieval semiotics; zoo- semiotics Semiosis assumes choice – even if the organism is not aware of it. For instance, a dog who starts to bark is not an automaton – at least during a brief moment it can (subconsciously) choose either to do so or not. This moment of confusion while facing the possibilities and working out the action is sign process proper – the quantum of communication – that slowly becomes understandable through the semiotic studies of living beings. The history of zoosemiotic studies is well described in an anthology compiled by Timo Maran, Dario Martinelli and Aleksei Turovski (2011). Its focus is on the 20th century, when zoosemiotics received its name and became institutionalized, earlier views are concisely described under the title “Prehistory” (Maran et al. 2011: 23–29). A broader account is given by Donald Favareau (2010). Research into the history of early zoosemiotics, preceding the 19th century, has expanded and remarkably intensified in recent years.
    [Show full text]
  • Umberto Eco's Rhetoric of Communication and Signification Susan Mancino Duquesne University
    Duquesne University Duquesne Scholarship Collection Electronic Theses and Dissertations Spring 5-11-2018 Understanding Lists: Umberto Eco's Rhetoric of Communication and Signification Susan Mancino Duquesne University Follow this and additional works at: https://dsc.duq.edu/etd Part of the Rhetoric Commons Recommended Citation Mancino, S. (2018). Understanding Lists: Umberto Eco's Rhetoric of Communication and Signification (Doctoral dissertation, Duquesne University). Retrieved from https://dsc.duq.edu/etd/1445 This One-year Embargo is brought to you for free and open access by Duquesne Scholarship Collection. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Duquesne Scholarship Collection. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNDERSTANDING LISTS: UMBERTO ECO’S RHETORIC OF COMMUNICATION AND SIGNIFICATION A Dissertation Submitted to the McAnulty College of Liberal Arts Duquesne University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Susan Mancino May 2018 Copyright by Susan Mancino 2018 Susan Mancino “Understanding Lists: Umberto Eco’s Rhetoric of Communication and Signification” Degree: Doctor of Philosophy February 2, 2018 APPROVED ____________________________________________________________ Dr. Ronald C. Arnett, Dissertation Director Professor Department of Communication & Rhetorical Studies APPROVED ____________________________________________________________ Dr. Janie M. Harden Fritz, First Reader Professor Department
    [Show full text]
  • TOWARDS a SEMIOTIC BIOLOGY Life Is the Action of Signs
    • TOWARDS [ ASEMIOTIC ' BIOLOGY Life is the Action of Signs Imperial College Press TOWARDS A SEMIOTIC BIOLOGY Life is the Action of Signs P771tp.indd 1 5/3/11 5:22 PM TOWARDS A SEMIOTIC BIOLOGY Life is the Action of Signs Sense world s si interpretant io m e s Receptor Sense net Carrier of a feature sign Internal world Object Opposite structure Effect net Carrier of an effect representamen object Effector Effect world Editors Claus Emmeche University of Copenhagen, Denmark Kalevi Kull University of Tartu, Estonia Imperial College Press ICP P771tp.indd 2 5/3/11 5:22 PM This page is intentionally left blank Published by Imperial College Press 57 Shelton Street Covent Garden London WC2H 9HE Distributed by World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. 5 Toh Tuck Link, Singapore 596224 USA office: 27 Warren Street, Suite 401-402, Hackensack, NJ 07601 UK office: 57 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London WC2H 9HE British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. TOWARDS A SEMIOTIC BIOLOGY Life is the Action of Signs Copyright © 2011 by Imperial College Press All rights reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without written permission from the Publisher. For photocopying of material in this volume, please pay a copying fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. In this case permission to photocopy is not required from the publisher.
    [Show full text]
  • Deely, John Nathaniel (1942-)
    Middlesex University Research Repository An open access repository of Middlesex University research http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk Cobley, Paul ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8222-159X (2016) Deely, John Nathaniel (1942-). In: The Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Philosophers in America: From 1600 to the Present. Shook, John R., ed. Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 244-247. ISBN 9781472570543. [Book Section] Final accepted version (with author’s formatting) This version is available at: https://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/20013/ Copyright: Middlesex University Research Repository makes the University’s research available electronically. Copyright and moral rights to this work are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners unless otherwise stated. The work is supplied on the understanding that any use for commercial gain is strictly forbidden. A copy may be downloaded for personal, non-commercial, research or study without prior permission and without charge. Works, including theses and research projects, may not be reproduced in any format or medium, or extensive quotations taken from them, or their content changed in any way, without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). They may not be sold or exploited commercially in any format or medium without the prior written permission of the copyright holder(s). Full bibliographic details must be given when referring to, or quoting from full items including the author’s name, the title of the work, publication details where relevant (place, publisher, date), pag- ination, and for theses or dissertations the awarding institution, the degree type awarded, and the date of the award. If you believe that any material held in the repository infringes copyright law, please contact the Repository Team at Middlesex University via the following email address: [email protected] The item will be removed from the repository while any claim is being investigated.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    Piccola biblioteca 143 general term 'Germans' over the more polite, because narrower, 'Nazis'" (157). Typical of this unflaggmg sense of responsibility to the dead are the works of Yiddish poet, and Vilna Ghetto survivor, Abraham Sutzkever In his poem "Under the Earth," he imagines that the dead are still alive, under the earth: "Are there birds twittenng under die earth, / choking back / their holy tears in their thin necks, / or is that throbbing under the earth once -used words that seem invisible birds/.... /And I dig with my hands-bony spades, /down to where the black / palaces burst, / where words throb / hidden m viohns" (in Ruth Whitman, ed. An Anthology ofModern Yiddish Poetry. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1995). There is a voluminous amount of survivor testimony. A central element of many of these works is an obhgation to remember. In his Memoirs (New York: Knopf, 1994), Holocaust survivor and Nobel laureate Ehe Wiesel states: "I thought about it with apprehension day and night: the duty to testify, to offer depositions for history, to serve memory. What would man be without his capacity to remember? Memory is a passion no less powerful or pervasive than love. What does it mean to remember? It is to live in more than one world, to prevent the past from fading and to call upon the future to illuminate it It is to revive fragments of existence, to rescue lost beings, to cast harsh hght on faces and events, to drive back the sands that cover the surface of things, to combat obhvion and to reject death" (150).
    [Show full text]
  • Keynote Speakers
    Keynote speakers Susan Petrilli is Full Professor of Philosophy and Theory of Languages, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Italy; Visiting Research Fellow at the School of Psychology, Adelaide University, Australia; 7th Thomas A. Sebeok Fellow of the Semiotic Society of America; Fellow of the International Communicology Institute (Washington, D.C.); international visiting research scholar at the Bob Hawke Institute for Sustainable Societies, the University of South Australia and at numerous universities across the globe. Her main reseach areas include philosophy of language, semiotics, ethics, linguistics, translation theory, communciation studies. She has contributed significantly to the dissemination of Thomas A. Sebeok's work in Italy and of his global semiotics, translating several of his books into Italian. With Sebeok and Augusto Ponzio she published the monograph Semiotica dell’io, 2000; with Augusto Ponzio she has also co- authored two monographs on Sebeok: Sebeok and the Signs of Life, 2001, and I segni e la vita. La semiotic globale di Thomas A. Sebeok, 2002. Susan Petrilli has brought world-wide attention to Victoria Lady Welby, inventor of Significs, now considered the mother of modern semiotics. After publishing a first monograph in Italian, Su Victoria Welby. Significs e filosofia del linguaggio (1998), Petrilli published Signifying Understanding. Reading the Works of Victoria Welby and the Signific Movement (2009), a volume collecting a monograph on Welby, together with an anthology of her writings, followed by a third monograph, in English, Victoria Welby and the Science of Signs (2015). Petrilli has also published three anthologies of Welby’s writings in Italian translation. In addition to Welby and Sebeok, Petrilli has made a significant contribution, including as editor and translator, to the dissemination of the ideas, among others, of Charles S.
    [Show full text]