The Four-Cornered Negation and the Semiotic Expression of the Presemiotic
The other day it occurred to me that Indian philosopher Sañjaya Belatthiputta’s principle of four-cornered (or four-fold) negation (FCN) may bear an important conceptual relation to presemiotic semiosis, i.e., to semiosis that expresses no awareness of semiosis.* FCN follows the form “Neither A, nor not-A, nor both A and not-A, nor neither A nor
( Read more... )
You're an existentialist, are you? I thought you didn't like labels. ;) I, too, find the FCN to be of limited application, and although a cosmic clown once fancied me a "closet mystic," I have not yet made the leap of faith into that "choiceless awareness" wherein the FCN gets expressed "existentially," if you will. Does the FCN apply universally? and on what level? Do "levels," too, require fourfold nihilation? To take the existentialist reference a bit further, the whole thing reminds me of Kierkegaard's stages. Instead of the common analysis of the stages in terms of "aesthetic," "ethical," and "religious," a focus on the the three stages in terms of "first immediacy," "reflection," and "immediacy after reflection" (or "second immediacy") might be fruitful. The first stage could express the FCN as embodied in presemiotic experience. The second stage could signify the moment of semiotic awareness. Finally, the third stage might indicate not a return to a presemiotic vantage point, which is impossible, but to a state where signs are allowed to become what they are. Ah, but what are they to become? And why apply the FCN at this juncture? Much to ponder. Perhaps I just do not have what it takes to make this particular "leap of faith."
Reply
I don't like labels. I do however find labels useful in explaining to others where my heart lies.
Does the FCN apply universally? and on what level? Do "levels," too, require fourfold nihilation? Depends on what you mean by "universally". There is an interpretation that the four fold negation stems from everyone's subjectivity and that each point of view is opposite to another. So not to be idiotic or redundant but I could say that yes it applies universally, no it does not, it both does and does not, etc. I think that it does have levels from my POV, and these are established via their usefulness to argument and practical application.
a focus on the the three stages in terms of "first immediacy," "reflection," and "immediacy after reflection" (or "second immediacy") might be fruitful.
I think that's a great idea! Don't stop now!
Perhaps I just do not have what it takes to make this particular "leap of faith."
I doubt this, actually. I would love to see this fleshed out more. Assuming it hasn't already been done, who is a better candidate than you?
Reply
Then in what manner do you count yourself an existentialist?
I doubt this, actually. I would love to see this fleshed out more. Assuming it hasn't already been done, who is a better candidate than you?
I can think of a few. No matter, the problem is that this requires more than merely thinking things through, as that's still merely "reflection." The shift to a perpetual state of attentivity is paradoxically one of the easiest and most difficult tasks for a semiotic animal. "Fleshing it out" requires real flesh, real embodiment-and therein lies the rub.
Reply
"Fleshing it out" requires real flesh, real embodiment-and therein lies the rub.
Indeed. I want to see you do it anyway. I think you are capable and have the interest and self discipline to probably get a book out of it. Unless you want to save that as post PhD work...
My point is that you already sparked my imagination and piqued my interest with your random questions about it in an lj comment.
I have not the education to pursue at length an inquiry of this kind, though I might like to...
Reply
Leave a comment