Jairo Ferreira 206 this need. Others appropriate Peirce in the context of post-structuralism or deconstruction (like Deleuze). In the area of communication, Peircean authors indi- cate ways to be traced to understand this. One path is suggested by Pinto (1987). In this article, Pinto states that Lacan, like Peirce, understands meaning as dy- namic, which emphasizes semiosis as a movement. But, in Lacan, meaning is empty (destitute of a meaning), and this, says Pinto, results in a conception of the subject as the author of an adop- tion of a signifier among those available because: a. the same sign can have several meanings; b. there is nothing that forces a univocal relationship between sign and meaning; c. then, it is up to the subject to define this relationship. This perspective is attributed, by Pinto, to structuralism, referenced in linguistics, and its dyadic conception (medium and object) that does not consider the third party (the interpretant). For our formulations, this criticism by Pinto leads us to a proposition: the need for a semiotic formulation that does not remain in the known dilemmas of structuralism. In other words, it is necessary to overcome not only the linguistic paradigm, but also to update the objects epistemologically constructed from a triadic logic, even to “read Lacan”, who, as we will see, adopts, paradoxically, a tetrahedral logic (as in Greimas). Santaella (1999) also addresses the epistemological analogies between Peirce and Lacan. In the article, she proposes a general comparison between Peirce’s universal phenomonological categories, firstness, secondness, and thirdness, on the one hand, and the three Lacanian registers, also called conceptu- al categories of human reality, the categories of the imaginary, real, and symbolic, on the other hand. (SANTAELLA, 1999, p. 1). We highlight, in the article, the reference to “conceptual categories of human reality.” It is precisely what our argument is about: a shift and relations from general logical triads to one species-specific triad. But the author is also especially important for our reflection due to the way she approaches the triad
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjEzNzYz