Semiotics post
Semiotic's For Begginers
Maybe one of the easiest to understand and yet most complex to grasp ideas. With the presumption of existance, we find ourselves comptemplating interpretation and meaning of that interpretation, how an interpretation is arrived at, and sometimes even go so far as to explain why we arrive at that interpretation.
Ofcourse, the meaning of the word and caricature of "interpretation" must be agreed upon or found before we can get any further.
Logically, the totality of the arguements that are put forth fall apart when the system is used against itself, without the presumptive meanings being assumed. But the arguements and the ways in which they are derived do find interesting theories and logics that lead to questions of interpretation, quite possibly the truer meaning of semiotics itself. (The questioning of meaning, or the meaning of meaning if you will).
One of the more interesting arguments that is used in a supportive manner is that the components of language need to be practically invisiable as or carry no interpretive meaning of themselves in order for them be effective in carrying the greater meaning of what they make up. For example, in the written, or pixels displayed markings that are perceived of here in the word Bat, the individual letters of B, a, and t do not carry a meaning in and of themselves when they are combined in this fashion, but rather represent a whole. Simply put, the meanings of any individual components are overlooked in order to see the greater whole. Gestalt therory. Without the assumptive knowledge of the rules of the language, but with the understanding of the sounds we hear in our minds of the letters, we can run into the problem of seeing Bat in symbols (if you will) and deriving its meaning in our mind as Be a tee (or) tea. Quite different from the animal, or the stick used in a game that is meant(?) to come to mind.
What is interesting to me here is that we find without some other form of confirmation for our interpretation we are left to assume that we understand follows the same rules, the same paradigm.
The eassy it self seems well written, but I wonder too if the language itself is not a bit presumptive about it's audience. I understand that the need for exactness in explaining the meaning of meaning, but at the same time, when looked at from the system of semiotics, it can easily be derived that this is simply not a beginners resource, for in order to understand the whole of things, one must have some grasp of many, if not all of it's parts.
Maybe one of the easiest to understand and yet most complex to grasp ideas. With the presumption of existance, we find ourselves comptemplating interpretation and meaning of that interpretation, how an interpretation is arrived at, and sometimes even go so far as to explain why we arrive at that interpretation.
Ofcourse, the meaning of the word and caricature of "interpretation" must be agreed upon or found before we can get any further.
Logically, the totality of the arguements that are put forth fall apart when the system is used against itself, without the presumptive meanings being assumed. But the arguements and the ways in which they are derived do find interesting theories and logics that lead to questions of interpretation, quite possibly the truer meaning of semiotics itself. (The questioning of meaning, or the meaning of meaning if you will).
One of the more interesting arguments that is used in a supportive manner is that the components of language need to be practically invisiable as or carry no interpretive meaning of themselves in order for them be effective in carrying the greater meaning of what they make up. For example, in the written, or pixels displayed markings that are perceived of here in the word Bat, the individual letters of B, a, and t do not carry a meaning in and of themselves when they are combined in this fashion, but rather represent a whole. Simply put, the meanings of any individual components are overlooked in order to see the greater whole. Gestalt therory. Without the assumptive knowledge of the rules of the language, but with the understanding of the sounds we hear in our minds of the letters, we can run into the problem of seeing Bat in symbols (if you will) and deriving its meaning in our mind as Be a tee (or) tea. Quite different from the animal, or the stick used in a game that is meant(?) to come to mind.
What is interesting to me here is that we find without some other form of confirmation for our interpretation we are left to assume that we understand follows the same rules, the same paradigm.
The eassy it self seems well written, but I wonder too if the language itself is not a bit presumptive about it's audience. I understand that the need for exactness in explaining the meaning of meaning, but at the same time, when looked at from the system of semiotics, it can easily be derived that this is simply not a beginners resource, for in order to understand the whole of things, one must have some grasp of many, if not all of it's parts.
posted by poweredbyantitrust at 4:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home