Abstract
“Rights” have their roots in responsibility. This essay addresses the question of where in nature does “responsibility” enter into the interactions among finite beings. My argument is that the answer lies in the “metasemiosis” whereby human beings, in contrast to alloanimals (and indeed to living and nonliving nature as a whole), are able to become aware of the relations themselves on which semiosis depends, and thereby to attain a realization of the consequences of our behavior not only within human society but also on the larger surroundings both biological and physical. It is from this species-specifically unique understanding of semiosis in its underlying relational being that responsibility arises as itself a species-specifically human phenomenon. As a result, whatever “rights” there are exist only as corollary to the responsibility that human animals must take for the consequences of human actions beyond as well as within the cultural realm.
In consultation with Susan Petrilli
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Sebeok (1986).
- 2.
Sebeok (1984).
- 3.
I might note that it was exactly 11 years after Sebeok’s diagnostic presidential address to the SSA in 1984 that it first occurred to me to suggest, in ad lib remarks at the conclusion of presenting my 1995 “New Beginning for the Sciences” paper never incorporated into the text itself, that semiosis is perhaps the fully correct term for what has customarily been called since Darwin “evolution.”
- 4.
The presentation outlines as follows:
The linguistic approach: necessity and limitations 2
In search of the broadest sense of sign 6
Is Sebeok’s Final View of Semiosis Co-Extensive with Life Broad Enough? 7
Semiosis as Indirect Cause No Less Than Condition of Life? 8
“Rendering Inefficient Relations Efficient” 9
Semiosis as an influence of the future 9
The transition within semiosis to semioethics 12
The Semioethic Animal 13
- 5.
Peirce (1903, CP 2.274, EP 2.272–73; D29 in Deely: Appendix A.
- 6.
- 7.
Maritain (1957).
- 8.
- 9.
Crucial for semiotic development over the long term, though unfortunately not yet customary and even resisted in presently advanced semiotic circles (see this point dramatically illustrated in Short’s (2009) response to Deely 2009a, b), to distinguish between “the being of signs in the common sense” of that foreground element under a triadic relation which represents another than itself to or for a third, and “the being of signs formally considered” which consists rather in the triadic relation itself (cf. Poinsot 1632, p. 154/21–30; Peirce 1904, CP 8.332; Deely 2001 and 2008c), uninstantiable to sense but recognizable intellectually, which unites the three elements of representamen, significate, and interpretant (i.e., which constitutes the sign as triadic)—without which relation there would be no “signs in the common sense” nor, more generally, no representamens able to become signs within the awareness of animals. Peirce, coming from a mathematical perspective, speaks of the triadic relations that occur prior to awareness as “degenerate thirdness.” But when we consider semiosis in the evolutionary context of moving a lifeless universe in the direction of becoming able to support life, we should perhaps speak rather of pregenerate thirdness, or “physiosemiosis,” operating precisely through those repraesentamina which will become “signs in the common sense” once animal will have emerged in the biosemiosis which includes the realm of plants as well as animals.
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
Peirce is speaking of “degenerate cases” from the standpoint of genuine thirdness; but from the standpoint we are considering we might as well call them “pregenerate” cases.
- 13.
Poinsot, of course, had no idea whatever of the universe as an evolutionary development, yet his notion of semiosis points precisely in that direction once the myth of the celestial spheres has been exposed, which makes his remarks on the point at hand all the more interesting—Poinsot (1632): Treatise on Signs, Book I, Question 1, 126/3–22: “it suffices to be a sign virtually in order to signify in act. This can be readily seen in an example: X in act causes and produces an effect, therefore it is in act really a cause; for when the cause in question no longer exists in itself, through the virtuality or efficacy it leaves behind, it causes and causes formally, because the effect is then formally produced. Just so, when a sign exists and by a virtual signification formally leads the mind to something signified [which no longer exists in fact], it is nevertheless not a sign formally, but virtually and fundamentally. For since the rationale of moving or stimulating the mind remains, which comes about through the sign insofar as it is something representative, even if the relation of substitution for the signified does not remain, the sign is able to exercise the functions of substituting without the relation, just as a servant or minister can perform the operations of his ministry even when the master, to whom he bespeaks a relation, and in which relation the rationale of servant and minister formally consists, has died.”
- 14.
On the full (and first) definition of this term, see Deely 2010, p. xiii–xiv.
- 15.
Recalling Sebeok (1984, 20).
- 16.
- 17.
- 18.
Here I am extending to the physiosemiosic order an observation that Peirce makes of the anthroposemiosic order (Peirce 1906, CP 5.488): “It is not to be supposed that upon every presentation of a sign capable of producing a logical interpretant, such interpretant is actually produced. The occasion may be either too early or too late. If it is too early, the semiosis will not be carried so far…. On the other hand,” the occasion may come too late. (Here, then, is the proper place of chance in the process: central, yet not the very heart of the matter—cf. Deely 1969, pp. 105–111.) In the extension, yet still following Peirce (1904, CP 8.332), “we may take a sign in so broad a sense that the interpretant of it is not a thought, but an action or experience, or we may even so enlarge the meaning of sign that its interpretant is a mere quality of feeling,” with the yet further qualification (Peirce 1907, W 2.410) that “it may possibly be that I am taking too narrow a conception of the sign in general in saying that its initial effect must be of the nature of feeling, since”—as we mentioned above—“it may be that there are agencies that ought to be classed along with signs and yet that at first begin to act unconsciously,” as indeed must be the case wherever it is a question of physisemiosis, as in nature prior to the advent of life. See Deely (2008a).
- 19.
Peirce 1868, CP 5.316: “Finally, as what anything really is, is what it may finally come to be known to be in the ideal state of complete information, so that reality depends on the ultimate decision of the community; so thought is what it is, only by virtue of its addressing a future thought which is in its value as thought identical with it, though more developed. In this way, the existence of thought now depends on what is to be hereafter; so that it has only a potential existence, dependent on the future thought of the community.” And as we know all thought to be in signs—thought being not only itself a semiosis but a particular semiosis, depending in its achievements on yet other semioses which are not thoughts (i.e., semioses whose interpretant “is not a thought, but an action” bringing about a thirdness even if only virtually, and semioses the “agencies [of which] ought to be classed along with signs and yet that at first begin to act quite unconsciously”—so it is necessary that thought reveal something of the essence of semiosis as such, something common to every semiosis, and I am suggesting that that quintessence of sign action is an influence of the future affecting the present and reshaping the relevancy of the past. There is not always the achievement of genuine thirdness in semiosis—for example, when it is virtual but not yet actual— but there does seem always to be an influence of the future, which seems to be the meaning of Poinsot’s formula (a formula which even Short 2007, pp. 53–56 recognizes to be operative in Peirce’s doctrine of signs. See further Poinsot 1632, pp. 126/1–32; Peirce 1902/1903, CP 2.275; Deely 1989; Deely 2008b).
- 20.
See the attribution in Deely 2010, pp. xv–xvi. Bernard here was drawing upon and summarizing in particular the work of Petrilli 2004–2010, along with that of Petrilli and Ponzio 2001–2004, listed in the References below; but this list is representative, not exhaustive, even of the dialogue between Deely 2004a and Petrilli 2010 from which the present essay eventuates.
References
Aquinas, Thomas (c. December 1224–1274 March 7). 1252–1273. S. Thomae Aquinatis Opera Omnia ut sunt in indice thomistico, ed. Roberto Busa (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1980), in septem volumina.
Aquinas, Thomas (c. December 1224–1274 March 7). 1259/1265. Summa Contra Gentiles, in Busa ed. vol. 2, 1–152.
Aquinas, Thomas (c. December 1224–1274 March 7). 1266/1273. Summa theologiae, in Busa ed. vol. 2, 184–296.
Bentham, Jeremy (1748–1832). 1816. Chrestomathia: Being a Collection of Papers, Explanatory of the Design of an Institution Proposed to be Set on Foot Under the Name of the Chrestomathic Day School, or Chrestomathic School, for the Extension of the New System of Instruction to the Higher Branches of Learning, For the Use of the Middling and Higher Ranks in Life, in The Works of Jeremy Bentham, ed. John Bowring (Edinburgh, 1838-1843; reproduced 1962 by Russell & Russell, Inc., New York), Vol. 8, pp. 1-191, esp. Appendix No. IV, the “Essay on Nomenclature and Classification”, 63–128.
Bense, Max. 1984. The so-called ’anthropic principle’ as a semiotic principle in empirical theory formation. The American Journal of Semiotics 2 (4): 93–97.
Deely, John. 1969. “The Philosophical Dimensions of the Origin of Species”, The Thomist XXXIII (January and April), Part I, 75-149, Part II, 251–342.
Deely, John. 1980. The nonverbal inlay in linguistic communication. In The Signifying Animal, eds. Irmengard Rauch and Gerald F. Carr, 201–217. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Deely, John. 1985. “Editorial AfterWord” and critical apparatus to Tractatus de Signis: The Semiotic of John Poinsot (Berkeley: University of California Press), 391–514; electronic version hypertext-linked (Charlottesville, VA: Intelex Corp.). See entry below for Poinsot 1632.
Deely, John. 1989. “The Grand Vision”, presented on September 8 at the September 5-10 Charles Sanders Peirce Sesquicentennial International Congress at Harvard University. First published in the Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society XXX.2 (Spring 1994), 371-400, but after the submission of corrected proofs the journal repaged the whole and introduced such extreme errors as to make the text unreadable at some points. The correct version has appeared as Chap. 7 of Deely, New Beginnings. Early Modern Philosophy and Postmodern Thought (Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 1994), 183-200; and in Colapietro and Olshewsky eds., Peirce’s Doctrine of Signs (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1996; one of the several volumes of the Proceedings of the Harvard Peirce Congress), 45–67.
Deely, John. 1991. Semiotics and Biosemiotics: Are Sign-Science and Life-Science Coextensive? In Biosemiotics, The Semiotic Web 1991, ed. Thomas A. Sebeok and Jean Umiker-Sebeok, 45–75. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter (1992, 45–75. Since revised as Chap. 6 “How Do Signs Work?” in Deely 1994a, 151–182.
Deely, John. 2001. Physiosemiosis in the semiotic spiral: a play of musement. Sign Systems Studies 29 (1), 27–46 (publication of morning presentation made February 16 at the International Colloquium “The Semiotic Threshold from Nature to Culture” organized by Winfried Nöth at the University of Kassel, Wz II, February 16–17, 2001).
Deely, John. 2004a. From semiotic animal to semioethical animal and back. In Macht der Zeichen, Zeichen der Macht/Signs of Power, Power of Signs (Festschrift für Jeff Bernard; = Trans-Studien zur Veraenderung der Welt 3), ed. Gloria Withalm and Josef Wallmannsberger, 120–136. Wien: Lit. Verlag.
Deely, John. 2004b. Dramatic Reading in Three Voices: ‘A Sign Is What?’ The American Journal of Semiotics 20 (1–4): 1–66 (with numbered lines for presentation as a three-voice dramatic reading).
Deely, John. 2006. The literal, the metaphorical, and the price of semiotics: An essay on philosophy of language and the doctrine of signs. Semiotica 161 (1/4): 9–74.
Deely, John. 2007a. Intentionality and Semiotics. A tale of mutual fecundation. Scranton: Scranton University Press.
Deely, John. 2007b. The Primary Modeling System in Animals. In La Filosofia del Linguaggio come arte dell’ascolto: sulla ricerca scientifica di Augusto Ponzio/Philosophy of Language as the art of listening: on Augusto Ponzio’s scientific research, ed. Susan Petrilli, 161–179. Bari: Edizione dal Sud.
Deely, John. 2008a. Descartes & Poinsot: The crossroad of signs and ideas. Scranton: Scranton University Press.
Deely, John. 2008b. Evolution, semiosis, and ethics: rethinking the context of natural law. In Contemporary perspectives on natural law, ed. Ana Marta González, 413–442. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Deely, John. 2008c. “Semiotic Sign”, condensed video presentation of Deely 2004a edited and enacted by Chris Tennison and Jim Bernhard. <http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=E9651802BCDC14BF>.
Deely, John. 2008d. Words, thoughts, things: Aristotle’s triangle and the triadic sign. In Semiotics, ed. John Deely and Leonard Sbrocchi, li–xc. Ottawa: Legas (2009).
Deely, John. 2009a. “’To find our way in these dark woods’ versus coming up short”, a review-essay of Thomas Lloyd Short, Peirce’s theory of signs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2007), in Recherche Semiotique/Semiotic Inquiry (RS·SI), 26.2-3 (2006), 57-126; with Short’s “Response to John Deely” immediately following, pp. 126-138. Further in 2009b. (Note re the 2009a and 2009b reference date discrepancies: This review essay was commissioned 11 April 2007, submitted in final form October 2007; actual publication was in January 2009).
Deely, John. 2009b. “A Short Farewell”, a brief rebuttal, dismissive and definitive, of Short’s “Response to John Deely” cited in the immediately preceding 2009a entry, published in Recherche Semiotique/Semiotic Inquiry (RS·SI), 27.1-2 (2007), 183-185 (and, as was the case with the 2009a entry, the actual publication is also in 2009).
Deely, John. 2010. Semiotic Animal. A postmodern definition of “human being” transcending Patriarchy and Feminism, to supersede the ancient definition as “rational animal” and the modern definition as “res cogitans”. South Bend: St Augustine’s.
Deely, John. 2011a. Postmodernity as the unmasking of objectivity: Identifying the positive essence of postmodernity as a distinct new era in the history of philosophy. Semiotica 183-1/4: 31–57.
Deely, John. 2011b. The unmasking of objectivity. In Person, being, and history: essays in honor of Kenneth Schmitz, ed. Michael Baur and Robert E. Wood, 284–303. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press.
Deely, John. 2012. Sebeok’s three-level modeling system to explain anthroposemiosis within biosemiosis. In Semiotic Prologues, eds. Deely and Danesi, 365–383. Ottawa: Legas.
Deely, John. 2014. “The terms ’Sign’ and ’Representamen’ in Peirce”, which includes an “Appendix” organizing Chronologically Peirce’s 84 definitions of sign as given between 1865 & 1911 (forthcoming).
Doyle, John P. 1984. The conimbricenses on the relations involved in signs. In Semiotics (Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Semiotic Society of America), ed. John Deely, 567–576. Lanham: University Press of America (1985).
Doyle, John P. Editor and Translator. 2001. The conimbricenses. Some questions on signs. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press (Bilingual critical edition of Conimbricenses 1607, Chap. 1 of their commentary on Aristotle’s De Interpretatione, in Commentarii Collegii Conimbricensis et Societatis Jesu. In Universam Dialecticam Aristotelis Stagiritae. Secunda Pars (Lyons: Sumptibus Horatii Cardon, 1607), pp. 4–67). (An earlier edition minus the Greek text of Aristotle was published at Coimbra itself in 1606.)
Hoffmeyer, Jesper. 2008. Biology is immature biosemiotics. In Semiotics, ed. John Deely and Leonard Sbrocchi, 927–942. Ottawa: Legas (2009).
Lieb, Irwin C. 1953. Charles S. Peirce’s letters to Lady Welby. New Haven: Whitlock’s, Inc. (22 letters are dated from 7 June 1903 to 25 July 1911, pp. 1–48. Photostat copies of these letters, including the deleted existential graphs of the letter of 31 Jan, 24 Feb, 14 March, 1909, are on deposit in the Yale University Library. See also Appendix B, pp. 51–55, on Peirce’s classification of signs, and in this connection see Paul Weiss and Arthur W. Burks, “Peirce’s Sixty-Six Signs,” The Journal of Philosophy 42 (5 July 1945), 383–388, which contains names of kinds of signs derived from the Harvard mss).
Maritain, Jacques (18 November 1882–1973 April 28). 1957. “Language and the Theory of Sign”, reprinted with the addition of a full technical apparatus explicitly connecting the essay to Maritain’s work on semiotic begun in 1937 and to the text of Poinsot 1632 on which Maritain centrally drew, in Deely, Williams and Kruse eds. 1986: 51–62. Page references in this book are based on the 1986 reprint as the most definitive English version.
Maritain, Jacques (18 November 1882–1973 April 28). 1967. “Vers une idée thomiste de l’évolution”, Nova et Vetera 2, 87–136. Reprinted with a 1972 Postscript in the Oeuvres Complètes de Jacques et Raïssa Maritain (Fribourg: Editions Universitaires Fribourg Suisse, et Paris: Editions Saint-Paul Paris, 1983–1995), Vol. XIII, 573–648. Maritain’s Approches sans Entraves volume has been translated into English by Bernard Doering as Untrammeled Approaches (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 1997), where “Toward a Thomist Idea of Evolution” appears on pp. 85–131.
Peirce, Charles Sanders (10 September 1839-1914 April 19). Note. The designation CP abbreviates The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vols. I–VI ed. Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931–1935), Vols. VII-VIII ed. Arthur W. Burks (same publisher, 1958); all eight vols. in electronic form ed. John Deely (Charlottesville: Intelex Corporation, 1994). Dating within the CP (which covers the period in Peirce’s life i. 1866–1913) is based principally on the Burks Bibliography at the end of CP 8 (see entry above for Burks 1958). The abbreviation followed by volume and paragraph numbers with a period between follows the standard CP reference form. The designation EP followed by volume and page numbers with a period in between abbreviates the 2-volume set of The Essential Peirce, a selection of those essays from the complete Peirce corpus (that is, unpublished as well as previously published) deemed most seminal and central to Peirce’s propriate perspective (pragmaticism or semiotic) made by the personnel of the Peirce Edition Project under the general editorship of Nathan Houser. EP 1 covers the years 1867–1893, EP 2 covers 1893–1913 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992, 1998, respectively). The designation NEM abbreviates The New Elements of Mathematics, ed. Carolyn Eisele (The Hague: Mouton, 1976), 4 vols. bound as 5, covering the period 1864–1914. The designation W followed by volume and page numbers with a period in between abbreviates the ongoing Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition, initiated as the Peirce Edition Project at Indiana University-Purdue University/Indianapolis by Edward C. Moore under the general editorship of Max H. Fisch, succeeded first by Christian Kloesel in late 1984, then 1993 by Nathan Houser, and in 1999 by André DeTienne (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 7 vols. published so far—1982, 1984, 1986, 1989, 1993, 2000, 2010—of a projected 20). Unpublished mss. are cited by number, using the pagination made by the Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism at Texas Tech University in Lubbock.Chronology and identification of the Peirce materials is based on Burks 1958, Fisch et al. 1979, Hardwick 1977, and Robin 1967, 1971, as indicated at specific points.
Peirce, Charles Sanders (10 September 1839–1914 April 19). 1867. On a new list of categories, in CP 1.545-567; also in W 2.49–59.
Peirce, Charles Sanders (10 September 1839–1914 April 19). 1868. Some consequence of four incapacities. Journal of Speculative Philosophy 2:140–157 (reprinted in CP 5.264–317).
Peirce, Charles Sanders (10 September 1839–1914 April 19). 1870. Description of a notation or the logic of relatives, resulting from an amplification of the conceptions of Boole’s calculus of logic, in W2.359–429.
Peirce, Charles Sanders (10 September 1839–1914 April 19). 1902. “Minute Logic”, draft for a book complete consecutively only to Chap. 4. Published in CP in extracts scattered over six of the eight volumes, including 1.203-283, 1.575-584; 2.1-202; 4.227-323, 6.349-352; 7. 279, 7.374n10, 7.362-387 except 381n19. (For fuller detail, see Burks 293–294.)
Peirce, Charles Sanders (10 September 1839–1914 April 19). 1902/1903. “Syllabus”, in CP 2.274-277, 2.283-284, 2.292-294, 2.309331 (with 2.309 continuing 2.294) are from it. The Peirce Edition Project currently deems 1903 the most likely date of composition.
Peirce, Charles Sanders (10 September 1839–1914 April 19). 1903. Lowell Lectures, “Some Topics of Logic Bearing on Questions Now Vexed”, esp.: lect. IIIA, “Lessons from the History of Philosophy”, CP 1.15-26; draft 3 of lect. 3 entitled “Degenerate Cases”, in CP 1.521-544; lect. 8, “How To Theorize”, CP 5.590-604 (Burks p. 295); and the section published in CP 4.510-529 under the title “The Gamma Part of Existential Graphs”.
Peirce, Charles Sanders (10 September 1839–1914 April 19). 1904. Photostat copy of a letters in the Yale University Library, on signs and the categories, dated 12 Oct 1904, partially reproduced in CP 8.327-341; published in full in Lieb 1953.
Peirce, Charles Sanders (10 September 1839–1914 April 19). 1905. Review of Wilhelm Wundt’s. Principles of Physiological Psychology 1.81 (20 July) 56–57. Also in New York Evening Post (21 July 1905) 4:1-3. Reprinted in CP 8.196-204, except 201n3 ([Bibliography] G-c.1905 − 9) which is from a draft in Widener.
Peirce, Charles Sanders (10 September 1839–1914 April 19). 1906. “Pragmatism (Editor [3])”, in CP 5.11-13, except 5.13n1, and 5.464-496, with 5.464 continuing 5.13, (both dated c.1906) are from it. CP 5.11-13 were previously printed in The Hound and Horn 2 (April–June 1929), 282–285, under the title “The Founding of Pragmatism”.
Peirce, Charles Sanders (10 September 1839–1914 April 19). 1907. Ms. 318 in Robin 1967: 36-7, numbered ISP 00002-00350: one of the most important of Peirce’s literary remains, this many-layered ms. has never been published in full. Where I have drawn on unpublished sections I have used a photocopy bearing the sheet numbers stamped by the Texas Tech Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism (hence: ISP nos.) on the electroprint copy Ketner with associates had made from microfilm, and then checked against the original in the Harvard archives. Further subdivisions and rearrangements have been made since. Originally an untitled letter-article to the editor of The Nation, this ms. has several partial draft endings signed “Charles Santiago Peirce”, but no single, consecutive, complete draft as a whole. Part appears in CP 5.464-496 under a title supplied by the editors of the volume, “A Survey of Pragmaticism” (cf. Burks p. 299). A small segment appears under the title “From Pragmatism” in NEM III.1: 481-494. The most complete, but still partial, presentation of this document is in EP 2.398-433, under the title “Pragmatism”.
Petrilli, Susan. 2004a. Semeiotica medica e semioetica. Corposcritto 4:95–116.
Petrilli, Susan. 2004b. Semioethics, subjectivity, and communication: for the humanism of otherness. Ideology, logic, and dialogue in semioethic perspective. Semiotica. Journal of the International Association for Semiotic Studies 148 (1/4): 69–92 (Special Issue ed. by Susan Petrilli).
Petrilli, Susan. 2004c. Human responsibility in the universe of ’Global Semiotics’. Semiotica. Journal of the International Association for Semiotic Studies 150 (1/4): 23–38 (Special Issue, ed. by Eero Tarasti).
Petrilli, Susan. 2004d. The responsibility of power and the power of responsibility: from the ’Semiotic’ to the ’Semioethic’ animal. In Macht der Zeichen, Zeichen der Macht./Signs of Power, Power of Signs, eds. Gloria Withalm and Josef Wallmannsberger, 103–119. Wien: INST.
Petrilli, Susan. 2004e. Semeiotica medica e semioetica. Medicina e umanità, Atti del congresso internazionale, Milano, 28–30 Novembre 2003, n., pp. 266–293, Spirali, Vel., Milano, 2004.
Petrilli, Susan. 2004f. Crossing out boundaries with global communication: the problem of the subject. The American Journal of Semiotics 20 (1–4): 93–210 (issue on semiotics and philosophy: synchronic and diachronic perspectives).
Petrilli, Susan. 2004g. Semeiotica medica e semioetica. In Il discorso della salute. Verso una sociosemiotica medica, a cura di Gianfranco Marrone, Atti del XXXII Congresso della Associazione Italiana di Studi Semiotici, Spoleto, 29 Ottobre– 1 Novembre 2004, Meltemi, Roma, 2005, pp. 79–91.
Petrilli, Susan. 2005. Significs, semioethics and places of the gift in communication today. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Pratiche Linguistiche e Analisi di Testi, PLAT. Serie annuale diretta da Augusto Ponzio, 4, 2005, pp. 73-88, Università degli Studi di Bari, Bari, Edizioni dal Sud, 2006.
Petrilli, Susan. 2010. Sign crossroads in global perspective. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers (monograph hardcover reprint of the Sebeok Fellow Special Issue of The American Journal of Semiotics 24.4 (2008), with the addition of a new “Editor’s Preface: In her own voice”, vii–ix, and comprehensive Index, 303–330).
Petrilli, Susan, and Augusto, Ponzio. 2001. “Bioethics, Semiotics of Life, and Global Communication”, presented at the German-Italian Colloquium, The Semiotic Threshold from Nature to Culture, University of Kassel, WZ II, 16–17 February 2001, and published in Sign Systems Studies 29.1 (University of Tartu, 2001), pp. 263–275.
Petrilli, Susan, and Augusto, Ponzio. 2002. Bioetica, semiotica della vita e comunicazione globale. Vita. Athanor. Semiotica, filosofia, arte, letteratura, a cura di A. Ponzio, anno XIII, ns. 5, 2002, pp. 325–332.
Petrilli, Susan, and Augusto, Ponzio. 2003a. Biosemiotics, semiotics of self, and semioethics. Sign Systems Studies 31.1:65–107.
Petrilli, Susan, and Augusto, Ponzio. 2003b. Semioetica. Roma: Meltemi.
Petrilli, Susan, and Augusto, Ponzio. 2004. Global communication, proximity and responsibility: beyond the logic of identity (with A. Ponzio). Semiotica. Journal of the International Association for Semiotic Studies 150 (1/4): 151–167 (Special Issue, ed. by Eero Tarasti).
Poinsot, John (9 July 1589–1644 June 17). 1632. Tractatus de Signis, subtitled The Semiotic of John Poinsot, extracted from Poinsot’s Artis Logicae Prima et Secunda Pars of 1631–1632 (orig. ed. Alcalá, Spain; modern ed. by B. Reiser, Turin: Marietti, 1930) and arranged in bilingual format by John Deely in consultation with Ralph A. Powell (First Edition; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), as explained in Deely 1985: 445ff. Pages in this volume are set up in matching columns of English and Latin, with intercolumnar numbers every fifth line. (Thus, references to the volume are by page number, followed by a slash and the appropriate line number of the specific section of text referred to—e.g., 287/3–26.) Available in electronic form (Charlottesville, Virginia: Intelex Corporation, 1992).
Sebeok, Thomas A. (9 November 1920–2001 December 21). 1971. ’Semiotic’ and its congeners. In Linguistic and literary studies in honor of Archibald Hill, I: general and theoretical linguistics, ed. Mohammed Ali Jazayery, Edgar C. Polomé, and Werner Winter, 283–295. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press (reprinted in Sebeok 1985: 47–58, and in Deely, Williams and Kruse 1986: 255–263).
Sebeok, Thomas A. (9 November 1920–2001 December 21). 1984. “Vital Signs”, Presidential Address delivered October 12 to the ninth Annual Meeting of the Semiotic Society of America, Bloomington, Indiana, October 11–14; subsequently printed in The American Journal of Semiotics 3.3 (1985), 1–27.
Sebeok, Thomas A. (9 November 1920–2001 December 21). 1985. Contributions to the Doctrine of Signs (=Sources in Semiotics IV; reprint of 1976 original with an extended Preface by Brooke Williams, “Challenging Signs at the Crossroads” [Williams 1985], evaluating the book in light of major reviews; Lanham, MD: University Press of America).
Sebeok, Thomas A. (9 November 1920–2001 December 21). 1986. “A Signifying Man”, feature review of Tractatus de Signis in The New York Times Book Review for Easter Sunday, 30 March 1986, pp. 14–15; German translation by Jeff Bernard appears in Semiotische Berichte Jg. 11 2/1987: 234–239, with translator’s “Anmerkung” p. 240.
Short, Thomas Lloyd (5 August 1940– ). 2007. Peirce’s Theory of Signs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Short, Thomas Lloyd. 2009. “Comment on Deely’s Response”, published in Recherche Semiotique/Semiotic Inquiry (RS·SI), 27.1-2 (2007), 188–189 (and, as was the case with the Deely 2009a & b entries above, the actual text was both written and published in 2009).
Todorov, Tzvetan (1939–?). 1977. “The Birth of Occidental Semiotics”, being “La naissance de la sémiotique occidentale”, pp. 13–58 of Todorov’s Théories du symbole (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1977), trans. by Daphne Swabey and Judith Mullen, in The Sign, ed. Richard W. Bailey, L. Matejka, and P. Steiner (Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, 1978), 1–42.
Todorov, Tzvetan (1939–?). 1982. Theories of the Symbol. Oxford: Oxford University Press (trans. by C. Porter of Théories du symbole. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1977).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Deely, J. (2015). From Semiosis to Semioethics. In: Trifonas, P. (eds) International Handbook of Semiotics. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9404-6_36
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9404-6_36
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9403-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9404-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)