Reports

Up

Description
Up
Categories
Published
of 17
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  !"# %&'(' FUTURES AND THE INTERSEMIOTIC CONDITION It is up  to @You !"# %&'%(%')*+,- ,%'# ./ !"# %&!#0,#1%.!%2 2.&'%!%.&  with interest in future-oriented issues Pluralism , sustainability  , context-oriented awareness , legitimacy of social identities  are justsome of the buzzwords one could find whenever a technical, social or even a domestic issue isput inside more and more complex frameworks of causes and relationships. Citizens in everystage of their learning trajectories are frequently being invited to think out of a familiar contextof previous knowledge and supposedly clear individual responsibilities in order to make senseof a number of frequently diffuse phenomena that directly or indirectly are producingconsequences in their perceptions of life, such as the pros and cons of Internet use,environmental policies, etc. At first sight any of these diffuse phenomena could be taken for !"#$%&' #) *+#% ,-.'&"$/%01 2"&)&$%) /%)&345 %+6) 73#/-/$! ,8&%%&" 23#$$/$!15 ,-."& 8#3#$7&'2683/7 2.3/7/&)15 ,-."& ).7/#330 "&)2.$)/9& 7."2."#%/.$)15 ,"&)2&7% .4 /$'9/'6#3 7+./7&)15 #$' )..$: ;"/%/7#3 #22".#7+&) 7.$7&"$/$! %+& /-23/7#%/.$) .4 # ,).7/&%0 .4 ."!#$/<#%/.$)1 4." %+& individual as formulated e.g. by DRUCKER(1969) as well as their wider implications for thepossible conceptions of agency versus  structure i.e. how people influence and act upon socialrealities and institutions and vice versa, have been addressed by a number of theoretical andpractical initiatives.WHITTLE & SPICER (2008) consider, in the field of organizational studies, the relevance of a critical approach  which involves some fundamental features: ontological denaturalisation  (i.e.things are not simply the given ones but could be otherwise), epistemological reflexivity   (i.e.recognizing the role of the researcher as being involved in knowledge processes and theiroutcomes) and anti-performative politics  (i.e. considering new possible forms of socialorganization instead of uncritically reinforcing or dismissing existing ones). In a similar way weintend here to ask ourselves whether the consideration of the intersemiotic condition (HEISKALA, 1993) taking effect or being enabled in non-performative political environmentsand enhanced by a reflexivity-oriented epistemological framework (provided e.g. by PeirceanSemiotics) could reveal the multiple aspects of a (de)naturalised ontology for individual agency  !"# %&'(' FUTURES AND THE INTERSEMIOTIC CONDITION and its implications across social realities, or for the corresponding representations of material / symbolic aspects of recognisable or possible contexts which will provide means for individualconceptions developing from those competing social realities subsumed by DRUCKER(1969) #) # =).7/&%0 .4 ."!#$/<#%/.$)1 #$' &9&$ 8&0.$' %+/) )7.2&: >+& 4.33.*/$! 3/$&) .4 %+/) '"#4%5 #) far as possible in a brief text, will try to expand this question. ?6"/$! %+& 2"&9/.6) '&7#'&) %+& *."' ,763%6"&1 *#) /$7."2."#%&' 80 %+& )%6'0 .4 ."!#$/<#%/.$) so as to bypass the shortcomings of a bounded rationality   characteristic of individual activitiesand explain the relevance of shared representations for collective action and also for thecoordination of contributions across levels of managerial and technical work, giving them asense of (in)appropriatedness and (un)feasible ways of description according to what is tacitlyor explicitly sustained or suppressed in terms of a social reality in which an organization claimsand/or chooses to operate (OUCHI & WILKINS, 1985 ; DANDRIDGE, 1988). This could bealso understood as a semiotic strategy   (ECO, 2001, p.76 ; BERG, 1988) i.e. how symbolic andmaterial artifacts contribute towards the generation of dynamic semiotic interpretants 1  (e.g. an ."!#$/<#%/.$@ #) )&&$ */%+ %+& 3&$) .4 # !/9&$ 763%6"#3 #22".#7+ A # )&-/.%/7 7.$'/%/.$ BB#9#/3#83& /$ %&"-) .4 /%) 3&!/8/3/%0 4".- #$ /$'/9/'6#31) 8#7C!".6$': >+/) &44."% /$9.39&) 7.$)%#$% redescriptions  and considers an srcinally anthropological interest to expand meanings forhuman experiences and their contexts which could not be detached and coherent descriptionsas the ones found in written texts, but require a continuous effort to perceive and solve informational gaps  while experiencing the nuances of human culture(s) as they emerge(GEERTZ, 1989, p. 62). This human need could not be restricted to an individual situated #-.$! # ,).7/&%0 .4 ."!#$/<#%/.$)1 86% /$736'&) # !&$&"#3 )&$)& .4 #3&"%&'$&)) '&)/"#830 improved by a widely accessible repertoire and by the possibility for an individual to interrupt a )/-23& ,'.*$3.#'/$!1 4".- 2#)% +#8/%) #$' think differently   (WEICK, 2006 ; SCHARMER, 2007; SANTAELLA, 2004, p. 248-249). Former goals of an objective idealism gave place to thepuzzling effects of an state of uncertainty as overcodification  in contemporary societies *+&$&9&" %+.)& !#2) #"& $.% 8&/$! &44&7%/9&30 #$' '0$#-/7#330 ).39&' .$ 8&+#34 .4 /$'/9/'6#3)1 expectations and collectivities they act upon.   1  A  semiotic interpretant   integrates a relationship with sign and object as devised in Peircean Semiotics (HOFFMAN, 2001).A dynamic semiotic interpretant   represents a range of interpretive variations with respect to a recognizable context orstructure operating at more abstract articulation levels (HEISKALA, 1993, p.591)  !"# %&'(' FUTURES AND THE INTERSEMIOTIC CONDITION D/%+ %+&)& 8"/&4 /'&#) /$ -/$'5 *& %+&$ 4/$' E/)%. F&/)C#3#1) 4."-63#%/.$ .4 #$ intersemiotic condition  as (...) that condition where we, in semiosis, constantly face those signifying wholes which we areforced to interpret   on the basis of contextual self-evidences other than those which informedtheir emergence. In such conditions the emergence of meaning is not controlled by anindividual actor   (...) (HEISKALA, 1993, p. 581, emphasis added) G0 7.$)/'&"/$! -.'&"$/%0 #) # )&% .4 -#H." 7.$9&"!/$! %"&$') )67+ #) I/$'6)%"/#3/<#%/.$J5I'/44&"&$%/#%/.$ .4 )2+&"&) .4 &7.$.-0 #$' 2.3/%/7)J5 I-#"C&% ."/&$%#%/.$ .4 &7.$.-0J5 I# )%#%&8#)&' .$ %+& "63& .4 3#*J5 I# 86"&#67"#%/7 )%#%& #22#"#%6)J5 I# "&)%"67%6"/$! .4 7.--6$/7#%/.$&$9/".$-&$%)J KFLMNOPQP5 RSST5 2: UVUBUVW@5 %+& 9&"0 /'&# .4 emergence  involves a socialconception of space which is not simply tied to localities but departs from human perception #$' /%) /$%&"#7%/.$ */%+ # -0"/#' .4 #"%/4#7%) ). #) %. "&7.!$/)& ,#%-.)2+&"&)1 %#C/$! 23#7& beyond conventional borders of spatial effect (L …W, 2008, p.46). This means on the one hand an openess of codes, an accessibility of artifacts, being them subjected to simultaneousinterpretations according to individual habits, choices and institutional backgrounds to takeeffect on everyday acts of building and sharing meanings. On the other hand, each humanagent would be given appropriate resources and empowered   to tackle with these samecoexisting codes and artifacts on behalf of their self-determination and at the same time beingaware of what is coming to appear as stances of determined / sanctioned meanings in sociallife, this empowerment facing hurdles departing from the same artifacts and habits ofinterpretation sustained or put in circulation across social environments by men (SKINNER,1972, p. 196)If the highly aesthetized customs of everyday life would lead us to question whether we are !./$! %. '&#3 */%+ ,".-#$&)X6& )/-63#%/.$) .4 &9&"0'#0 )2#7&)1 #$' ,)/-63%#$&.6)$&))4#$%#)/&)1 KGPE>FLN5 YZZT@5 #) 7+#33&$!&) 8&/$! 2.)&' %. 4."-#3 &'67#%/.$ ." /$)%/%6%/.$#32#%+) 7.$7&"$/$! %+& 2".9/)/.$ .4 )67+ #$ ,&$7073.2&'/7 C$.*3&'!&1 2 , reinforcing hermeneutic &44."%) .4 /$'/9/'6#3) #) %+&0 86/3' #$' 2&"7&/9& ,%02/7#3 )+#"&' -&#$/$!)1 #% %+& 3&9&3 .4    2  )**+*, -. /"0123 -4 45* 1*6*1 78 +-97: :*/:*.*;4-427;. <%/-2,*2-=> -;, -+*;-01* 47 ;7;?82;24* 2;.4-;3*. 78 ,*4*:+2;-427; -;,*+*:#*;3*. 78 ;*@ 37#;2426* 57:2A7;. -. +*-;2;#. 32:3"1-4* <%*;BCB127.=>D  !"# %&'(' FUTURES AND THE INTERSEMIOTIC CONDITION dynamic semiotic interpretants of vital importance for human collectivities since helping us tooperate without being subjected to overinterpretation  of cultural artifacts subject to competing #22".#7+&) A &:!: %+& -63%/23& /--&'/#%& )&-/.%/7 /$%&"2"&%#$%) K&#7+ /$'/9/'6#3 "&#'/$!@ between an intentio operis  .4 # 3/%&"#"0 %&[% #$' *+#% /) "&7#33&' #) # ,-.'&3 "&#'&"1 KL;\5 2001, p. 75-76). More intensive challenges could be found at the level of individualsensemaking since  perception  and situated cognition  converge to what could be considered as action in social space  (L …W, 2008, p.42), conveying symbolic articulations amenable to changes and individual variations in interpretation (HEISKALA, 1993, p. 590). Thus, both froman aesthetical and pragmatist view, these articulations reflect a continuous shift of meanings(ECO, 2001), an embedded dualty 3  (BISEL, 2009) at the level of individual perceptions whichcould allow multiple or more subtle levels of coding, as referred to the same dynamic semioticobjects, that could be transposed from more tangible (personal perceptions) to more intangiblelevels of coding 4  (shared symbolic artifacts) (SANTAELLA, 1998, p.88 ; GREIMAS, 1990, p.3).This process includes dynamic affirmation  (HEISKALA, 1993) as it gives place to a number of ,2.))/83& *."3')1 "&)63%/$! 4".- %+& $&9&"B&$'/$! /$%&"#7%/.$ .4 %"#'/%/.$ #$' -.'&"$/%0 (RODRIGUES, 1999, p.63-65) and their corresponding effects on a given locality, context,group, etc.The emergence of meanings, made observable at some macro level, would imply thepossibility of change / rearticulation of shared symbolic representations with effects to, andalso being affected by, the dynamic affirmation of institutions, groups and individual agents.Instead of conceiving a controlling stance, the intersemiotic condition (HEISKALA, 1993) wouldhelp towards envisaging dimensions of individual action across typical 5  states of change-in-process (DURAND, 2001) and keeping a critical approach in this endeavor (WHITTLE &SPICER, 2008).   3  An aspect associated by CUTOLO(1996) with the youth demonstations of the 1960s.as they symbolically incorporate theuncertainity principle orginally found in Atomic Theory and already represented through vanguard artistic streams. By theearly 1970s organizational studies emphasized attention towards community structures, leaving behind the preference fordeterministc models (OUCHI & WILKINS, 1985, p. 469) 4  <DDD> E/:73**,2;# 8:7+ 7;* 1*6*1 47 -;745*: 2. 45* 7;1C 452;# 45-4 @7"1, *;-01* ". 47 #*4 45* +*-;2;# 78 @7:,. -;, 47 45* effects their combinations produce on us. Perhaps this is the wisest way to carry on, but it is also an expression of  5*1/1*..;*..F <GHIJK!LM (NN'M /DO> 5  i.e. in terms or their possibility to be recognised as conventions or semiotic symbols at the Peircean level of the Thirdness(SANTAELLA, 2005)  !"# %&'(' FUTURES AND THE INTERSEMIOTIC CONDITION Dialectic tensions at the level of everyday life of human agents would evoke a number ofchoices, some of them leading to redundances and habits of interpretation where one couldfind a locus  for the emergence or suppression of meanings. However, this developmentalconception could be refuted by counter-examples. Q&%1) /-#!/$&5 4." &[#-23&5 # 7."2."#%& &$9/".$-&$% *+/7+ /$9.39&) # 3.% .4 7.--6$/7#%/.$ among its participants. One day a joke is told by one collaborator to another, and subsequentconversations at the same site would make this same joke a bit widely known, becoming partof a short-term memory of its appreciators. Some weeks after, during a sheduledbrainstorming involving a group of decision-makers trying to establish ways of promoting amarket shift strategy, someone in the group suddenly remembers that joke because of someelements which caught his attention: a person trying to ask for a taxi in a city without trafficlights. Minutes of Internet search reveal a brief overview of countries in the world which wouldpresent prospective markets for the real offer of traffic lights. It was coherent with the focus ofthat ongoing brainstorm, and some days after a document is presented indicating, among thetop market shift strategies, a more intensive participation in the traffic lights industry.Investments were eventually successful and traffic lights became one of the stronger newareas of trade for that company. \6" $#/9& &[#-23& )C&%7+&) %+& &-&"!&$7& .4 # ,$&* /'&#1 '&2#"%/$! 4".- #$ #$.$0-.6) storyteller who perhaps would never imagine the telling of a joke would imply in new jobs, newprofits, new market shares straight coming from a democratic coffee room. This could alsoreflect an example of taking advantage of chaos in a reduced scale, if one considers the /$4."-#3 %&33/$! .4 # H.C& /$ .$& ,$.$B2".'67%/9&1 7.$%&[%5 #$' %6"$&' /$%. -#H." 7."2."#%&7+#$!&) /$ #$.%+&"5 #) # C/$' .4 ,86%%&"430 &44&7%1 /:&: #22#"&$%30 &2+&-&"#35 86% &$.6!+ repeated events producing major shifts (OBOLENSKY, 2007). In other corporate contexts, thesame storyteller could be an expected addressee for a number of initiatives intended tostimulate future-oriented creativity in the workplace, as showed in the practical example '&)7"/8&' 80 FMQ>]^L^KYZZ_@5 %#C/$! 7."2."#%& &$9/".$-&$%) #) )%#$7&) .4 ,#8'67%/9&7.$%&[%)1 *+&"& %+& &-&"!&$7& #$' %"#$)2.)/%/.$ .4 )0-8.3/7 #"%/4#7%) 7.63' 8& "&4/$&' 4".- the level of individual sense-making practices towards shared symbolic artifacts, in the sameway it would happen e.g. in a school or in a grocery store (SIEGEL & CAREY, 1989).
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x