Lemme know what you think – good or bad. I have a few others that I’ve doodled and require digital translation. The can be found Cartoons & charicatures under the disability tab.

My mother was there for two reasons: first, because I had barely slept during the passed few days and I didn’t think it wise to be driving alone to Ottawa; second, I dedicated my thesis to her. During the last 3 years, she’s listened to my caffeine-induced ramblings about Peirce and about my thesis, she’s been the most active supporter, including driving me to and from the campus in Ottawa during the year that I was without a vehicle.

Yet goofishness prevails… I didn’t acknowledge or thank anyone yesterday because I was acting on sheer stress-induced adrenaline. I would have liked to express my thanks and admiration for my thesis supervisor (I’ve shared this with him during our exchanges but I would’ve liked to share this with the others). I would’ve liked to thank Prof Bachand, in whom I feel a certain fraternity. I’ve suspected (and he confirmed yesterday) that he kept up to date on my situation through Facebook. At a point that I needed it, he offered me encouragement that I took to heart. And Professor Luppicini? What to say? He is insightful in a way that I’m not used to, making me appear slow in my processing. His comments and suggestions are so valuable. He intimidates me a little. Not as much as Prof Andacht, whom I revere as one of the wisest, most balanced, people I know, but close. He reminds me of Dr D, in a way (and we all know how awesome I think he is). Anyway, my post-thesis research interests regarding technology, Peirce’s normative sciences and disability may well have our paths cross again in the future (Prof Luppicini is into technoethics).

The defense went well. I had keynote rather than powerpoint as my presentation software. Unfortunately, the facilities didn’t have keynote so we spent about 45 minutes fiddling with the setup. We ended up hooking up my laptop to the console, but I couldn’t network my ipod touch with my laptop for some reason. That was a shame since I could have controlled the whole presentation from my ipod touch, while accessing my ‘presenter notes’, and I could’ve done this closer to the people rather than strain my one-working vocal chord by shouting from behind the console. It would’ve been beautiful (ideal). Instead, I winged it from the slides everyone saw. And to add a tad more complication, I had prepped for a 15minute presentation but it was supposed to be 10 minutes only! I’d like to say that it went well but I basically skipped over the theoretical section and went straight to the conclusion. Despite all this, I was so stressed that I was relaxed – like nothing could be terribly wrong (and Prof Grandena helped with this).

Then the main event. The question period. (I would’ve skipped the presentation entirely but that’s just me). It went well. I habitually shoved my hands in front of my mouth when talking which made it hard to hear me (Mom’s feedback) but aside from that, the questions weren’t too difficult (in retrospect, I don’t feel I adequately explained my understanding of Girardian scapegoat theory to Prof Bachand because I didn’t go into mimetic desire and scapegoating, but focused on its overlap with transvaluation. I also wish I would’ve revealed the pertinence to Barthes Neutral).

Professor Andacht shared this very nice passage from Peirce’s later years (that I have not read) and it was beautiful. The committee convened and when we were allowed back in, I was congratulated and they accepted my thesis (‘first grade’ I think Prof Grandena called it? – which meant it was accepted without the need for further corrections!). The thesis will be nominated for an award too! I was thrilled even though I was still adrenaline-drunk. There are a few minor changes I’ll make on it but the thesis is done!

Finally, I should perhaps add that upon leaving the campus, I noticed a ramp was installed to access the communication department building. To me, this was a genuine sign of acceptance (ie, even if my time at the Coms Dept was limited, someone actually put in the effort and thought it nonetheless worthwhile to install a ramp so others could have access. I was/am impressed).

Today, waking up… there are a dozen writings calling my attention. But first, a celebratory lunch with an old friend!

Maria.

Marie-Eve.

Catherine.

Laurence.

I purchased my mini-van from them in the summer of 2010 (it’s a Chevy Uplander 2009 model since minivans models were reduced in 2008). Before this, I had a 2000 Chrysler Grand Caravan that served me well for about 9 years before it perished. I bought that Caravan from Chrysler and had it modified at Van Action. That company had a crappy customer service during the first few years but ownership changed as well as the corporate culture. I likely would have stayed on with Van Action (especially since one of their reps is a friend’s cousin and this friend also introduced me to an owner) but Eureka had models already equipped with the basic adaptations (like ramp, lowered floor, and 6-way seat). The process of adapting a vehicle takes about 3 months not counting the bureaucratic hoops. When my Caravan died in 2009, for example, it took one full year for me to get the new vehicle, and this without the 3 months lead time since Eureka only needed to adapt driving controls.

Unfortunately, when you increase the amount of work on technology you also increase the chances for something to go wrong. My visit to Sherbrooke was prompted by the battery losing its charge when not in use for 3 consecutive days. Something must be pulling juice when the vehicle is not working and since August, I have been starting my vehicle every day to avoid needing another emergency boost (I’m well-aware of the useless burning of fuel and its impact on both, the environment and my wallet). The brief history of this problem is as follows: a few months after I got it, I had to change the van’s battery. The van didn’t start – I called CAA for a boost. It was covered by warranty and we (my mechanic and I) figured that the battery may have diminished between the time it was installed and the adaptation process. Since then, I was required to get CAA to boost me 3 times, which I figured not normal. I took an appointment with my mechanic, left the van with him for a day so he could verify the factory-installed electric components: everything was nominal. I then took an appointment with Eureka Solutions in LaSalle to verify the electrical adaptations. The technician removed every electrical system and found that both, the adaptations and the original vehicle were pulling a little too much (of course, Chevy specs state that the vehicle was within its range).

The visit to Sherbrooke. The Sherbrooke technicians spent the day re-testing every electrical system. The culprit was found to be the remote-starter. With all other systems nominal, the only addition to the original vehicle and the adaptations is the remote starter. Unfortunately, at only 30 miliamps, there aren’t any other models that could be used that would pull less. The solution? Put a solar panel recharger in permanently. Luckily, I have one.

My problem is that I believe merchants should be held accountable for their products and services. When I purchased the van, Eureka “sold” me a product (an adapted vehicle with remote starter and all other bells-and-whistles then-negotiated) with hassle-free functional electrical systems. What I really got was a slowly de-charging unit that nothing can be done to fix but that I’m nonetheless to incur any consequential hardship it occasions. All that for an investment of MERELY $65,000.

Note: This does not reflect my appreciation of the customer service that Lyn and Stephane have given me. It does, however, reflect my disappointment with this company. (When I originally picked up my van, several issues occurred that I felt unprofessional. For example: the interior of this BRAND NEW minivan was filthy from the mechanics’ dirty work clothes – which really put a damper on paying for a new vehicle. When the technician installed the adaptation that secures my wheelchair in the van, the installation of the component he installed on my wheelchair was likely botched because I scraped the brand new ramp and tore the flooring in my house! I claim this was botched because I’m assuming that the component, which is a staple of the adaptations that they install, is designed to fit with the ramp, not scratch it. I ended up having to pay to redo the flooring. And if THAT wasn’t enough, Eureka Solutions had tampered with the fuel gage without correcting it, leaving me stranded twice with the needle indicating I had well-over a half-tank left! I recall telling Lyn that I was actually disappointed with my purchase! I think I still am.)

Unfortunately for Eureka Solutions, their product after one year has not inspired my confidence in them but has rather decreased it. If we assume that I will likely purchase two more vehicles in my lifetime, we can calculate an estimated loss of $130,000 if I never again purchase from them (exempting any people negatively influenced by my experiences). I think this realization was likely entertained when the new owners of Van Action took over that company. Let’s hope Eureka realizes this solution earlier.

Link to posts

Julie Bryant: “What do you no for sure can someone pls answer this been trying for two weeks to wrote a philosophical essay and it’s just not working”

[several comments later]

Me: “pick me! pick me! I know for sure! I’m a Peircean pragmatist so I know for sure that my epistemology gives me real ontological results!!

knowledge is Not as relative as the social constructionists would have you believe (sorry Scott), BUT they’re correct in arguing that it is contingent and fallible. And as Tom pointed out, arguing ‘relativity’ puts you in a performative contradiction where your argument (if “everything” is relative) is bubkiss… Sailing, I agree, would solve this mess Tom (Can’t/Won’t write it for you Julie, but if you need clarification/suggestions, lemme know, k?)”

Brendan McGarry: “”I think therefore I am.” It’s been postulated that that’s the only thing we know for sure Not sure if this will help but it seems like a start lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum “

Me: [I rambled about dualisms but deleted and replaced the post, which was emailed to everyone invlved in the message, with] “sorry, got carried away there but cogito ergo sum is bad”

Brendan McGarry: “lol how come?”

Me: “it led to stupid beliefs we’re only now seeing how stupid… it led to philosophical traditions that trickled out to science and popular education that were just stupid bad. ‘I think therefore I am’ led mind/body dualisms which put humans as supreme because we were more ‘rational’ compared to animals which gave us carte blanche to do whatever (requiring environmentalist and animal rights/treatments movements)… mind/body dualisms led to sciences like psychology and medicine documenting why men are “naturally” more rational (mind) than women which were naturally more sexual (body) (requiring feminists to advocate for voting rights and equal opportunity/pay for work)… culturally, the whole nature/nurture debate which stems from that dualism nature=body/nurture=mind took science a century to realize ‘hey stupid, we’re naturally programmed to nurture!’… I could go on but I think people’ll be annoyed at my longwinded post. The worst thing is that this philosophical position makes absolutely no sense when you think about it (seriously or kiddingly)… if Mind is everything, how do we know anything outside or own minds (ie. so how do you know that you’re looking at a computer screen)? It took science so fraggin long and so many bull%$&* answers before semiotics came around to kick butt… but we’ll save THAT for another lesson… “

Julie Bryant: “Steve I think I’m gonna show this to my teacher”

Me: “you absolutely should! Tell him I’m no savant but tell him to read anything from John Deely before he discards anything I’ve said. If modernism was the era of sciences, post-modernism is the era of semiotics”

[AND THEN I got cocky. My downfall]

Me: “And I’ll debate the truth of it all against ANYONE (except a mathematician)”

The link is to a mediated exchange I had. Last night, I posted the following on my FB page:

Semiotic is the only perspective that I know of where objectivity and subjectivity are not opposed but come together! Yay for the study of the action of signs!

A former fellow student (and a friend of mine), Esperanza Maggay, replied:

although to me objectivity is just a concept. I think no sign can avoid subjectivity, and so once a reading [is] subjective, objectivity cannot exist, but only in theory perhaps

To which I replied:

um, no. of course, both are merely ‘concepts’ but if no objectivity exists, how is it you can know what I mean (and vice versa)? Objectivity is what it is regardless of one’s “subjective” experience of it. The rock I spot outside my window is really there (granted, one could argue that the rock has it’s own subjectivity but that’s beside the point that if you, or anyone, comes by my house and trips over it, they’ll realize its objectivity whether the person performed a “subjective” reading of it). I think what you’re getting at is that all knowledge is intersubjective (social constructionism) but taking it too far leads to idealism where everything becomes relative to the interpreting mind (f@#$en Descartes!) And if that is so, then again, how is it we can know what each other means (or even know to communicate?) The answer is semiotics (not the bobo/pseudo semiotic based in linguistics mind you) which deals with experience. Objectivity AND subjectivity are both experiential whereas modern metaphysics (f@#$en Descartes) opposed the two in a dualism of body versus mind. Semiotics – true ‘triadic’ semiotics – rather reveals that both are of the same experientially (much like how culture, in it’s species-specific and environment-influenced consciousness, is part of nature). Thanks Esperanza! for allowing me to put that out there!

She came back nicely with:

i see. but i also see it this way. we can see that there is always objectivity or the concept of this present in any subjective experience. and so even if you and i perceive the table somewhat differently, we can both agree that it’s a table. However, objectivity cannot have subjectivity. True objectivity (not the concept, but in it’s “real” form) can only stand on its own.

To which I returned:

um, no. you’re right in arguing that we can both come to an intersubjective agreement about the existence of the table. However, just as “there is always objectivity [...] in any subjective experience,” there is equally ‘always subjectivity in anything objective.’ Without going social con, the problem stems from the ontological difference between an object and a thing where an object, as opposed to a thing, must be cognized. I wrote that “objectivity is what it is regardless of one’s subjective experience of it” which was somewhat misleading since for something to BE objective, it must have been subjectively experienced at some point regardless of the one now experiencing it (whether ‘tripping over it or not’). Otherwise, it would be a thing. But the ‘objective’ universe out there, beyond our capacity to subjectively experience it is not, as such, a thing, because it is, to an extent, known. Thanks for engaging me in this thought-provoking discussion! (oh, and I wrote “no” cuz “true objectivity [CANNOT] stand on its own” since a subjective experience of it had to occur for it – the thing – to become known as an object. Does that make sense?)

Anyway, I realized where it was that I went wrong originally.
Esperanza, who I’ve had the pleasure of arguing with before, came back with

merci a toi! this is a good discussion indeed, challenging for me though as I am trying hard to keep up! So, there seems to be some thought out there that there is an “object” and a “thing” and that these two are different. I am not arguing that this is incorrect, but I mean in reality, I make no such difference, never heard of such a difference, and though I understand what you mean (or I think I do neway….) it’s just semantics. So, looking at it more simply, making no differentiation between these two (as such difference makes sense to me only in theory and not really in reality), I go back to saying that objectivity can only be without subjectivity, and also, it can never be part of an experience. Objectivity is never materialized in the human conscious, but exists outside of it. We can understand objectivity merely as a concept, but it is impossible for us to actually experience it. BUT, if we are going to distinguish between object and thing, then I understand and would agree with what you are saying. BUT again, if there is really such a difference then I would still say that objectivity remains just a notion, because the whole point of objectivity is that it is void of subjectivity. so there are only things, and then subjectivity. si si si??

And my response:

si! you’re doing good, making ME think about my argument! Yeah, I guess we can say that ‘thing’ and ‘object’ are philosophical terms in this case (but I disagree that it’s just semantics cuz there are important experiential differences between the two). But objectivity cannot exist without subjectivity and vice versa. You’re right in saying objectivity is a concept; so’s subjectivity for that matter. They’re both a product/part of discourse. Something objective has had to be experienced subjectively at some time otherwise it would’ve remained an unknown, right? (I think you mentioned that in a past post) – but wouldn’t that count more as intersubjectivity rather than subjectivity…? I mean, we’re not talking about the subjectivity of the person currently experiencing the ‘object’ but others’… (The problem I see with saying ‘objectivity can only be without subjectivity’ is that it is temporal, on the one hand, and it assumes we’re all solipsist subjectivities stuck in our own minds without experiencing anything outside).

For instance, I’m told there’s this structure called the Eiffel Tower in France. I’ve never experienced it (perhaps photographs and other representations of it) but I’m pretty confident it’s there… that it has an objective ‘being’ (that is, that it exists no matter whether you or I or anyone may agree or disagree on its existence and no matter whether you or I subjectively experience it in our lifetimes). So the “thing” which we objectified by giving the name ‘Eiffel Tower’ has an objective presence that anyone going to Paris can verify through their subjective experience of it. But it is objectively there at this very moment that should some ‘unknowing,’ blindfolded person run into it, will feel it’s objective presence-subjectively… but since the blindfolded person not know what it is he/she ran into, it will remain a thing that he/she has subjectively experienced, although what that ‘thing’ is (qua object) is indeterminate (therefore not an ‘object’ but a thing). Right?

Thanks again for taking the time to put up awesome arguments! I’m not studying this stuff either (FYI) but I enjoy sounding ‘as if’ I know what I’m talking about Anyway, I feel this line of discussion, while thought-provoking, is last week’s news. Shall I ‘probe’ you with another question if I come across one?