1. Fire & Ice Symbolism in Anthropological Reflection

2. Fire and Ice Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice. From what I've tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire. But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate To say that for destruction ice Is also great And would suffice. -Robert Frost

3. Elucidations on C. S. Peirce’s Theoretical Third T.S. Eliot’s “Waste Land” Who is the third who walks always beside you? When I count, there are only you and I together But when I look ahead up the white road There is always another one walking beside you Gliding wrapt in a brown mantle, hooded I do not know whether a man or a woman —But who is that on the other side of you? Illustration by Gustave Dore http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/d/dante/d19pu/complete.html

4. Of these lines (lines 359-365), Eliot noted, Of these lines (lines 359-365), Eliot noted, The following lines were stimulated by the account of one of the Antarctic expeditions (I forget which, but I think one of Shackleton's): it was related that the party of explorers, at the extremity of their strength, had the constant delusion that there was one more member than could actually be counted. The following lines were stimulated by the account of one of the Antarctic expeditions (I forget which, but I think one of Shackleton's): it was related that the party of explorers, at the extremity of their strength, had the constant delusion that there was one more member than could actually be counted. Eliot, Thomas Stearns. The Waste Land. New York: Boni and Liveright, 1922; Bartleby.com, 1998. www.bartleby.com/201/. [1/23/03] Eliot, Thomas Stearns. The Waste Land. New York: Boni and Liveright, 1922; Bartleby.com, 1998. www.bartleby.com/201/. [1/23/03]www.bartleby.com/201/

5. Charles S. Peirce’s Notion of Triadic Communication Referent (Sign = something that stands for something to somebody in some way), Referring expression (Object = what the sign stands for) Interpretation (Interpretant = the understanding the interpreter has)

6. Some Notes on Charles S. Peirce At the time Saussure was developing semiology in Europe C.S. Pierce was developing semiotics in the United States. He developed a triadic notion whereby ‘sign’ (something that stands for something to somebody in some way), ‘object’ (what the sign stands for) and ‘interpretant’ (the understanding the interpreter has) are involved in the process of communication (Malmkjaer, 1991:399). The major difference between this and Saussure’s dyadic notion of communication or ‘meaning making’ is that the interpretant (i.e., the interpretation of the sign) is itself a sign thereby inducing further (and potentially endless) interpretation. At the time Saussure was developing semiology in Europe C.S. Pierce was developing semiotics in the United States. He developed a triadic notion whereby ‘sign’ (something that stands for something to somebody in some way), ‘object’ (what the sign stands for) and ‘interpretant’ (the understanding the interpreter has) are involved in the process of communication (Malmkjaer, 1991:399). The major difference between this and Saussure’s dyadic notion of communication or ‘meaning making’ is that the interpretant (i.e., the interpretation of the sign) is itself a sign thereby inducing further (and potentially endless) interpretation.

7. For example, arriving in the class and seeing a completely quiet group of students, the high school teacher’s (i.e., interpreter’s) understanding of this ‘sign’ is the principal’s prior presence in the room (i.e., the ‘object’ is the lingering influence of the principal’s potential wrath). Reporting this interpretation (now a sign) to a colleague could cause the new interpreter to understand the original sign to imply the object of a mischievous group of students (who wish to make their teacher think the dread principal is about) and to interpret the teacher’s telling of the tale as implying that the teacher is a gullible dupe. As well, the ‘dupe-teacher’ could simply mull the whole situation over in his head and arrive at a new interpretation. This process would transform the original interpretant into a sign to generate a new interpretant that points to a new object (i.e., the teacher’s thought that the silence of the students could have implied a renewed respect for him). For example, arriving in the class and seeing a completely quiet group of students, the high school teacher’s (i.e., interpreter’s) understanding of this ‘sign’ is the principal’s prior presence in the room (i.e., the ‘object’ is the lingering influence of the principal’s potential wrath). Reporting this interpretation (now a sign) to a colleague could cause the new interpreter to understand the original sign to imply the object of a mischievous group of students (who wish to make their teacher think the dread principal is about) and to interpret the teacher’s telling of the tale as implying that the teacher is a gullible dupe. As well, the ‘dupe-teacher’ could simply mull the whole situation over in his head and arrive at a new interpretation. This process would transform the original interpretant into a sign to generate a new interpretant that points to a new object (i.e., the teacher’s thought that the silence of the students could have implied a renewed respect for him).

8. Although this sort of endless interpretation is something post-modernists could have a lot of fun with, I believe that “culture” and the institutions in which it is inscribed have a tendency to constrain certain interpretants fairly permanently. For example, when a person is labeled something like “philanderer” or “special needs child” these interpretations are near impossible to “endlessly interpret away” as Pierce’s theory of signs would imply. Regarding this issue at least, Pierce was more of a philosopher than a pragmatist - and I use this term colloquially. Although he is referred to as one of the people who started Pragmatism, a school of philosophy that included members like William James, John Dewey and George Herbert Mead, his description of the interpretant (what I refer to as the “theoretical third”) is far more ideal than it could be. Malmkjær, Kriten. 1991 The Linguistics encyclopedia. New York : Routledge. Although this sort of endless interpretation is something post-modernists could have a lot of fun with, I believe that “culture” and the institutions in which it is inscribed have a tendency to constrain certain interpretants fairly permanently. For example, when a person is labeled something like “philanderer” or “special needs child” these interpretations are near impossible to “endlessly interpret away” as Pierce’s theory of signs would imply. Regarding this issue at least, Pierce was more of a philosopher than a pragmatist - and I use this term colloquially. Although he is referred to as one of the people who started Pragmatism, a school of philosophy that included members like William James, John Dewey and George Herbert Mead, his description of the interpretant (what I refer to as the “theoretical third”) is far more ideal than it could be. Malmkjær, Kriten. 1991 The Linguistics encyclopedia. New York : Routledge.