Listening, Hearing, Sensing: Three Modes of Being and the Phenomenology of Charles Sanders Peirce

Abstract

This article accepts Lipari's invitation to continue rethinking communication along the lines of artful listening as understood through the lens of phenomenology. However, we trace out the implications following a different phenomenological tradition than the one stemming from the German tradition of Heidegger and Husserl—specifically, the phenomenology of Charles Sanders Peirce, who allows us to see listening differently and perhaps more clearly. The primary contribution from Peirce's phenomenology is the logos he uses to extract 3 fundamental categories of thought and nature: Firstness (Quality), Secondness (Relation), and Thirdness (Mediation). As we shall show, listening is characterized by a plural consciousness sensitive to Mediation as it reveals itself through Relation and Quality.

Organizational listening: Addressing a major gap in public relations theory and practice

“…These definitions are also informed and supported by human communication theories already noted, such as Gadamer's (1989) concept of openness and the dialogism and dialogue espoused by Bakhtin (1981Bakhtin ( , 1984 and Buber (1958Buber ( , 2002, as well as theories of receptivity (Kompridis, 2011); reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960); hospitality (Silverstone, 2007); and interactivity (Pelias & VanOosting, 1987). Also, literature on the ethics of listening (Beard, 2009;Bodie, 2010;Bodie & Crick, 2014;Conquergood, 1985;Gehrke, 2009) is directly applicable to this analysis and informs theory building and practice in public relations.…”

“…• Interpreting and constructing meaning from what others say as fairly and receptively as possible (Husband, 1996(Husband, , 2000ILA, 1995, p. 4); • Trying as far as possible to achieve understanding of others' views, perspectives, and feelings (Bodie & Crick, 2014;Habermas, 1984Habermas, , 1987Husband, 1996Husband, , 2000; • Giving consideration to what others say such as in requests or proposals (Honneth, 2007;Husband, 2009); and • Responding in an appropriate way after consideration has been given (Lundsteen, 1979;Purdy & Borisoff, 1997). Scholars agree that 'appropriate' does not necessarily mean agreement or acceptance of what is said or requested, but research shows that an explanation or some statement is required in cases of non-compliance with requests and particularly in cases of wrongdoing or failure (Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, 2007, p. 4).…”

“I Says to Myself, Says I”: Charles Sanders Peirce on the Components of Dialogue

“…In short, the Will to Learn requires "first, a sense that we do not know something, second, a desire to know it, and third, an effort-implying a willingness to labor-for the sake of seeing how the truth may really be" (EP 2: 48). When the same Will to Learn is shared by all parties-which we believe is equivalent to a shared commitment to listen to one another found in most accounts communication scholars' accounts of dialogue-then dialogue is not only possible but also necessary (Bodie & Crick, 2014;Floyd, 2010;Lipari, 2010Lipari, , 2012.…”

Lo inaudible en el estudio histórico de la música popular. Texto de reflexión crítica

“…De acuerdo a este paradigma, no hay sonido posible sin alguien quien lo escuche. Así pues, la representación del objeto sonoro es construida por el sujeto que experimenta la vibración del aire en el oído y el resto del cuerpo (Don Ihde 1976;Bodie y Crick 2014;Eidsheim 2011Eidsheim y 2015. La escucha implica pues un acto de interpretación, de direccionamiento de la atención, de ajuste sensorial.…”