From the Ontology of Interaction to the Semiotics of Education

Pikkarainen, Eetu

doi:10.1007/978-94-6209-395-9_5

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(Note that although Kantian language is employed here, Kant had no grounds for assuming discrete objects to exist at the noumenal level: Stables, .) Nor is it necessary to see the sign as employed in relation to other signs by virtue of their inherent qualities, dispositions or saliences (Pikkarainen, ) in order to understand the sign as relational. At the same time, the sign is simultaneously real and subjective (I engage semiotically therefore I am).…”

Section: Towards a Fully Semiotic Metaphysics: Freeing The Sign From mentioning

confidence: 99%

Semiotics and Transitionalist Pragmatism

Stables¹

2019

Journal of Philosophy of Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Colin Koopman identifies a longstanding tension between experiential givenism and linguisticism in forms of pragmatism, and offers semiotics as a candidate for resolving this. In this paper, I offer a pansemiotic account that construes the universe as events, and experience as implication in events. This process account resonates strongly with most of Koopman's aspirations for transitionalist pragmatism, but with one notable exception: it is strongly post‐humanist. The argument is in three stages. The first sketches out a semiotic process metaphysics that construes the sign as ubiquitous and evolutionary (qua Peirce) and as deferred (qua Derrida) and also as non‐quantifiable (thus addressing another problem besetting modern philosophy: mathematisation, cf. scientisation), while denying raw quality (contra Peirce) and the primacy of language in any form (contra Derrida). The second stage fleshes out this anti‐Cartesian world picture in terms of its inherent transitionalism, implicit meliorism and inevitable post‐humanism. The nature and role of the human on this account is considered briefly. The final stage considers the semiotics of the encounter on this account, and concludes with some thoughts about the teaching‐and‐learning encounter, taken as emblematic of the human role in taking things forward through explicitly social interaction. Such encounters can only be evaluated contextually, with respect to contestable considerations of significance and of progress.

show abstract

Section: Towards a Fully Semiotic Metaphysics: Freeing The Sign From mentioning

confidence: 99%

Semiotics and Transitionalist Pragmatism

Stables¹

2019

Journal of Philosophy of Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…) Nor is it necessary to see the sign as employed in relation to other signs by virtue of their qualities, dispositions or saliences (e.g. Pikkarainen, 2013) in order to understand the sign as relational. At the same time, the sign is simultaneously real and subjective (I engage semiotically therefore I am).…”

Section: Substance Vs Process: Metaphysical Contexts For Defining Thmentioning

confidence: 99%

Edusemiotics as process semiotics: Towards a new model of semiosis for teaching and learning

Stables

2016

Semiotica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard definitions posit the sign as a discrete entity in relation with other signs and standing for an object (either physical or psychological). Thus the sign has two roles, as prompt and as substitutive representation. The latter raises difficult questions about the relationship of the semiotic to the non-semiotic or pre-semiotic, which can be resolved logically (as in Peirce) or rejected as unanswerable (as in Saussure), but which can never be satisfactorily resolved empirically as the phenomenal cannot be divorced from the semiotic. This impasse can be resolved if we drop the assumption that the sign is essentially substitutive. The assumption of discrete entities, at either the phenomenal or the noumenal levels, is a function of discredited substance metaphysics. On a process metaphysical account, the reality of the sign is not attached to the discreteness of any pre-existing entity. The sign remains as prompt and as relational but not (other than sometimes with respect to other signs) substitutive. Rather than defined as standing for an object, the sign can now be regarded much more simply as a feature of an event. This conception of the sign is explored in terms of its implications for teaching and learning.

show abstract

“…are qualities. This common division is challenged by the ontological approach developed by C. B. Martin and John Heil, and this approach seems very fruitful especially for the philosophy of education (see Pikkarainen, ). Briefly, this theory states that all properties are at the same time dispositional and qualitative, or rather have both a dispositional and qualitative side.…”

Section: The Ontological Point Of View: Competence and Dispositionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competence as a Key Concept of Educational Theory: A Semiotic Point of View

Pikkarainen¹

2014

J. Philos. Educ.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, the concept of competence is studied from the point of view of the semiotics of education. It will be claimed that it is a central key concept when we are trying to analyse the meaning of education. Educational action can be reasonably understood as an insecure and complicatedly mediated trial to affect another person's competence. First, the recent discussion about the concept of competence and its relatives is shortly reviewed. Then, competence is analysed and defined according to Greimassian semiotic theory as a basic determining character of an acting subject. At the same time as competence is indispensably central for understanding the subjects of action, it is problematically empirically ineffable. This ineffability has a special meaning in education, where we must try to both plan our own educative action and evaluate the learning of the student according to these invisible features. It is proposed that in the recent discourse of education, the very popular use of the concept of competence is misguided and problematically mixed with its conceptual counterpart performance. From this viewpoint, the concept of competence should rather be connected to the ontological concept of disposition. The problem of multi‐dimensionality of competence is considered with the help of the Greimassian conception of modalities to create a richer and more detailed picture of the role of competence in action, and especially in education.

show abstract

From the Ontology of Interaction to the Semiotics of Education

Cited by 5 publications

References 27 publications

Semiotics and Transitionalist Pragmatism

Semiotics and Transitionalist Pragmatism

Edusemiotics as process semiotics: Towards a new model of semiosis for teaching and learning

Competence as a Key Concept of Educational Theory: A Semiotic Point of View

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About