The Four-Cornered Negation and the Semiotic Expression of the Presemiotic

[essius]

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

Comments

[royinpink]

I think my understanding of Firstness is clearer than my understanding of the FCN, so perhaps it will provide new light for someone other than myself. :(

[essius]

It's fairly simple once you see how the principle gets employed. For any question, FCN provides a negative answer. Ultimately, these negations need not imply any affirmative basis. Some who employ FCN do so in order to highlight the possibility of a state of attentivity or "choiceless awareness." Jiddu Krishnamurti is a modern author who some take to exemplify this kind of awareness.

It's very Zen.

Incidentally, how's your understanding of Secondness and Thirdness? Do you think you would be able to explain Peirce's categories with intelligibility and concision?

[royinpink]

Well, I get the providing a negative answer bit...sort of. Are you suggesting that this "choiceless awareness" is analogous to, say, the state of mind Peirce describes in "What Is a Sign?" to get at pure firstness and away from any thoughts about objects of our awareness or reactions to them? And if so, is what Peirce is describing really the same as providing a negative answer for any question? It seems like they should be similar if not the same, but yet, any First is what it is without respect to anything else, so it definitely is. Doesn't that contradict the idea of being "neither A, nor not-A," or am I misunderstanding?

Eh, I think my understanding of the categories is good, though by no means perfect. How concise are you thinking, exactly?

[essius]

Are you suggesting that this "choiceless awareness" is analogous to, say, the state of mind Peirce describes in "What Is a Sign?" to get at pure firstness and away from any thoughts about objects of our awareness or reactions to them?

When? In my last comment? No. I was not attempting to elaborate on the connection of FCM to semiotics here, but to speak generally of FCN, since you seemed to be having some difficulty with the concept. If you experience further difficulty, I recommend Raju's article on the FCN. (Google.) But if you meant in the OP, the answer is still no, though I can see vaguely what you're getting at. I would need a better grasp on Firstness to tell how closely the two are connected.

…any First is what it is without respect to anything else, so it definitely is. Doesn't that contradict the idea of being "neither A, nor not-A," or am I misunderstanding?

But what you say "it definitely is," you are speaking through Thirdness, so you have not let the implementation of the FCN take full effect.

Eh, I think my

Yes!

[yumdidlyiscious]

I agree. FCN can be a very useful tool in discovering avenues of thought and for exploring or reviving dead ends of thought. I have experienced this first hand when I started looking into Eastern religious thought, I had a hard time not absorbing other people's points of view in a non-prejudiced way before determining my own. At this point, I started to take the four cornered negation approach to what I read. It is a wonderful way of discovering new lines of thought. I then pushed this further into my prejudices and my beliefs. In fact, I could credit this approach (as opposed to general skepticism I tended to employ up to that point) with cultivating my critical thinking skills. You can actually see it (if you haven't already) in my personality as a habit of not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone very often

[essius]

My problem with Sanjaya ultimately stems from his commitment to this way of thinking past the point where it becomes useful. Or at least that is what we might infer from the Buddhist camp. In other words, when you reach the point of "Silence" the analysis stops. And for me, an existentialist, the point is to keep going. Am I being too vague?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 "

[yumdidlyiscious]

I thought you didn't like labels.
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

[essius]

I…labels useful in explaining to others where my heart lies.

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.