Since I promised to do this and have decided that the Carling Cup final isn’t important enough to actually watch and that the radio and highlights will satisfy me I’ve decided to get on with this thread.
For Saussure language is composed of signs, the basic units of meaning that enable us to communicate successfully. The signifer or ‘word image’ is the visual or acoustic representation of the signified or ‘mental concept’. Saussure isn’t particularly concerned with the question of referring to things in the world, for him the signified is a mental image, an idea. The signifier and signified together are the sign. It is important to note at this stage that “The signifier and signified are only seperable on the analytic level, they are not sperable at the level of thought - the word image cannot be divorced from the mental concept and vice versa.” (Modern Literary Theory, p6)
(Part One: General Principles)
For Saussure the relationship between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary, there’s no necessary connection between the mental image of a tree (whether actual or imaginary isn’t an issue that Saussure confronts) and the various words - tree, arbre, baum and so on that we use to signify such a mental image.
In the next section Saussure outlines his view of how words attain their meaning, how each signifier is part of a network of difference from other signifiers in the system.
(Part Two: Synchronic Linguistics)
(Modern Literary Theory)
We can explore this in more detail if any of you have questions, but I’m tiring and the game is about to kick off so I’ll leave it there for now.
Send her Victorious
Happy and Glorious
Long to Reign Over US
God Save the Queeeeeeeeeeeeen
and a poor one at that, imho [in therms of “philosophy,” maybe less so in epistemology and learning theories]. its great for grammarians and language fascists, but i think its just overkill.
seems maybe i should know who this Blanchot is, but usually all i need it wittgenstein and some general rules of positivism to understand the difference between normative philosophy and logic [science].
its llike ooking too hard and too long at the trees to understand the meaning of the forrest.
If you honestly think that semiotics is ‘overkill’ in a world where there are more communications, more signs, than at any previous moment in human history (that we know of) then I believe that you should reconsider your intellectual motivations…
This is only a suggestion, if you are offended then I’m sorry…
Logic is normative, it takes place in language…
Wittgenstein overthrew positivism, then poststructuralism well and truly finished the job. Again, no offence, but I wonder what century you are living in, theoretically speaking…
I think you should reconsider your postion, taking into account why Saussure might have favoured synchronic linguistics…
I’ll get onto that when I’ve got more time. The next chapter will be a brief explanation of Levi-Strauss and structural(ist) anthropology, just for context. Then we’ll get onto Barthes and Derrida, the limits of structuralism, the ‘collapse’ of the binary opposition between signifier and signified. Hopefully dasnichtege will have leapt in at some point and provided some useful information about some of the other writers mentioned also.
oh goody! yet another vivisection from the master of not…
1] please demonstrate your claim that semiotics precedes general semantics. if you are correct, it will be the first useful thing i have learned from you. otherwise an duntil then, like your avatar and most everything else, i think you have it assbackwards.
2]“I believe that you should reconsider your intellectual motivations… This is only a suggestion, if you are offended then I’m sorry…”
i believe you should check your ego at the door.
3] “Again, no offence, but I wonder what century you are living in, theoretically speaking…”
see #2.
4] no, not really.
5] oh goody, seeing as to how its the thread title and you never said anything of worth about it.
try less egoism and more critical thinking, it’d do ya’ some good.
Another attempt at an insult when I don’t respond with ‘oh thanks, your contribution has been oh so original and inspiring’…
Well, the origin of contemporary semiotics is Charles Peirce (1839-1914) and the term itself is at least as old as John Locke(1632-1704), the origin of General Semantics seems to have been Korzybski’s 1933 text Science and Sanity. Correct me if I’m wrong but that makes semiotics a lot older than general semantics…
This is your second insult, or at least attempt at an insult.
Great comeback. You didn’t understand my point, did you?
No, you didn’t understand my point.
Right, so synchronic linguistics (which also precedes General Semantics) which studies the structure of language in general is “llike ooking too hard and too long at the trees to understand the meaning of the forrest”…
Do you understand the terms of this discussion or are you just stabbing in the dark?
Duh, that’s because I haven’t finished with the thread yet. I don’t have the time to write 20,000 words in one go about the history of structuralism and poststructuralism. But nevermind, since you don’t even get semiotics, which is a pretty basic first step, you won’t get any of the rest of it…
Try actually researching a topic prior to commenting on it. You talked a load of bullshit about Hume (contradicted by the sections of the text that I cited) and insulted me, if you do the same here then you’ll only be reported to Imp again. You could actually look up Saussure and Peirce and explain WHY you think that General Semantics is the superior way of looking at things but that would involve actually reading a theoretical text, something I suspect you’ve never done…
charles peirce was a pragmatist and a mathmetician, iirc.
he did not invent semiotics, or coin the term. he may have discussed early concpets of meaning and signification, no doubt about that LINK?
but then, plato talked about FORMS and IDEALS. gee, is he semiotic also?
please.
as for the rest of your ego-fueled drivel, do please stop with the petty insults, its boring and DECONSTRUCTIVE. this is, of course, punny to me.
are you suggesting that semantics did not exist prior to the term being coined, yet you allow this exception for pierce? you claim locke USED the term?
Who also discussed, explicitly, semiotics. Well, he called them semeiotics, but we needn’t get into that. He is accepted as one of the founder of contemporary semiotics, the other being (duh duhduh duh) Saussure…
No, for reasons that are obvious to anyone who has studied the history of semiotics. I’ve presented you with irrefutable evidence, admit that you were wrong and apologise for insulting me…
You started with the insults, and you are wrong on every point…
No, you talked of General Semantics, not Semantics. General Semantics was invented in the early 20th century. You are incorrect, admit it and move on…
No, he coined the term ‘semeiotike’, from which we get semiotics/semeiotics. It’s a small linguistic step (though it took a couple of centuries)…
Perhaps it does, but semantics in that sense is a subset of semiotics…
We’ve been over this, if you’ve nothing to add and post once more then I’ll have a moderator remove your insults from this thread…
Why don’t you?
And to the discipline/history of that concept, which is a subset of semiotics, like I’ve been saying all along…
If you have nothing to add apart from poor insults and endless mistakes then please stop posting on this thread. I don’t know why you see following me around as your ‘mission’ but it’s getting a little boring and I’ve been polite with you and provided you with links supporting what I’ve said (for which you never offered even a hint of thanks). Your aim is clearly to be obstructive, for your own sake stop it…
No, you are mistaking my commentary on Saussure for what I, myself, think. If you’ve been making this mistake since the very beginning then no wonder you’ve no idea about this stuff.
Rather than just citing a great load of a wikipedia article interjected with ‘this is my favourite bit’ why don’t you actually contribute something to this discussion? An idea, a question, a comment. I’m reporting you to the moderators anyway for trying to insult me…
No, and Saussure didn’t even do this. You clearly haven’t understood a word that’s been said.
I see a language, you see a forest. You tell me who is on the right path…
is not the end game, MEANING? do i state that either/or is necessarily mutually exlcusive of the other?
neither did i state which “preceded” the other - i just stated yours is an a elaboration of meaning - defining meaning in method and structure- and in your case seemingly mostly reduced to structure.
that you claim to be a insert label, but seem to have so much trouble understanding my very simple points is most fascinating to me.
and again, how is structuralism limited to WORDS or SYNTAX - and not the STRUCTURES of mind and cognition?
Saying that (structuralist) semiotics is a ‘poor elaboration’ of another theory does imply that you think that the other theory is better…
To a deconstructionist there is no endgame ‘there is no final analysis’ (various)…
Making the mistake I mentioned - thinking that I agree with Saussure (I don’t, nowhere did I say that Saussure is correct in ANY of this)…
If thing Y is an elaboration of thing X then thing X has to exist first. Something can’t be an elaboration of something that it historically precedes, Socrates isn’t an elaboration of Nietzsche…
Like I said, General Semantics came after semiotics was invented…
It isn’t that I don’t understand them, it is that they are incorrect. Semiotics is NOT an elaboration of General Semantics. Semantics (in general) is a subset of semiotics (indeed, it’s a subset of linguistics)…
What structures of mind and cognition? Those invented by Kant or Chomsky, by perchance?
well, thank my lucky stars! i will bust out your vivsection technique his ONE TIME ONLY - just to recongnize this auspicious moment that you have decided to undertake.
do i need to direct you to the IMHO part, again?
are you saying you are not seeking MEANING?
oh, so WORDS came before MEANING?
wow.
really, so all knowledge is in language? you have no visual memories.no emotions, and no relatoinal associations?
in other words, all knowledge is in WORDS!?
goodlord man, thats just so narrow minded imho.
try from socrates to plato to kant to pierce to korbynski… and ? in between? why are you so damn linear?
chomsky LAD is non-material to MEANING, nor would it be necessary to challenge that structural concept as a part of overall cognition and mental mapping. its completely agreeable to general semantics.
perhaps you should actually learn about general semantics, on your own, rather then letting only my words inform you of it?
As you’ve demonstrated, your opinion is far from humble…
Not really, no… I mainly got into deconstruction for the pussy - when you explain to women that words are such inadequate vehicles for the expression of love you can skip a lot of the boring conversational foreplay…
No, they ‘came’ simultaneously…
Semiotics isn’t just concerned with words, though at a push I might concede that linguistics is…
Il n’y pas de hors texte…
Okay, those invented by Plato and Kant and Korbynski. Same difference…
