I'm sending this again cos I had a problem the first time:
Cheerskep
Re your: ' If I utter "doggy" to a shepherd in the remote Andes, no picture
of a dog will arise in his mind. But if 'doggy' "has a meaning", why
doesn't that happen? Because he hasn't been exposed to repeated association
of the sound, "doggy", with real dogs that his parents pointed at when they
said the word. "
Isn't the answer to this just that a word has meaning only in its relevant
speech community?
As for signs, it seems to me they also have meanings within certain
communities - which sometimes stretch beyond a given speech community - e.g.
a basic image of a man (and not a woman) on what looks like it could be a
toilet door can be found in lots of countries. Arrows for pointing are also
pretty well universal.
What puzzles me about signs is why so many academics etc ('semioticians')
place so much importance on them and want to build elaborate theories around
them - especially theories relating to art. Signs seem to me a very
primitive means of communication - in fact that's one of their principal
characteristics. They are a world away from anything to do with art.
I once knew someone who used to call semiotics 'semi-idiotics.' Maybe
that's going a bit far but the general idea appealed to me.
DA
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 21 March 2008 3:08 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Sign Theory
Peirce can be mind-enthralling. I remember when I was a freshman in college,
it was Peirce who provided me with my first new philosophical insight, and
it
bowled me over. (The insight was this: A belief is anticipation of future
experience. I'd simply never thought of belief that way, and it seemed to
fit
wonderfully.)
But exposure to a great deal of Peircean theory early on has a peril,
something like the one of being deeply immersed in a religion during
childhood and
youth. Many young people drilled in notions of God, sin, the after-life,
heaven, hell, the soul etc can never thereafter quite free themselves from
their
convictions enough to question those fundamental elements of their "faith".
Among the fundamental elements in Peircean theory are the assumption, for
example, that "signs" "have meanings". As an undergraduate I never
questioned
that, say, words "have meanings". Today, it nearly astonishes me when I see
textbooks on philosophy of language begin with the statement, "The central
feature
of bits of language -- what makes them language -- is that they have
meanings;
so linguistic meaning is something you encounter more often and are more
familiar with than just about anything else. It is remarkable, then, that it
is so
difficult to explain exactly what linguistic meaning is." ("The Meaning of
Language", Robert M. Martin)
Martin doesn't question that words "have meanings". He simply accepts that
they "have" them, and he takes his job to be to discover what these
"meanings"
-- that in some sense each word "possesses" -- "ARE". But
why doesn't he ask just why he has come to believe this? My position is that
indeed words DON'T "have meanings", that it is the repeated association of
the
utterance of word -- "milk", "hot", "doggy" -- with a given word that causes
the notion of milk, hot, or dog to arise thereafter in our minds when we
hear
those words. If I utter "doggy" to a shepherd in the remote Andes, no
picture
of a dog will arise in his mind. But if 'doggy' "has a meaning", why doesn't
that happen? Because he hasn't been exposed to repeated association of the
sound, "doggy", with real dogs that his parents pointed at when they said
the
word.
The rise of electronics has resulted in numerous neologisms being created --
'input', 'internet', 'blog', 'email'. It's only because of their repeated
association with certain notions -- an associating that is common to almost
all of
us here in the U.S. -- that a somewhat common notion arises in the minds of
all of us when exposed to the word. To me, it's almost dizzying to see that
people believe that when these neologism were created they somehow came with
a
mind-independent "the meaning of" the word. No, someone may say, they
"acquired" the meaning. When? At the moment some lexicographer decided to
put it in
his dictionary? How can one tell if a certain utterance/scription like
'foopgoom' "has" a meaning, "is" a word/sign? Answer: you can't discover
it, because
that "having", and the mind-independent "meaning", are chimerical.
Similarly, I shake my head at the seemingly unquestioned assumption by some
Peirceans that "signs" DO things, call it "signify", and they signify
specific
mind-independent "significations", what others might call the various "THE
meanings of" the signs. This error is all but identical with the error of
believing "words have meanings".
Okay -- don't agree with my conclusions, but at least question the belief.
But, as I say, like the belief in God, sin, damnation and salvation, once
inculcated early on, these beliefs in "meanings" and "signs" and "symbols"
and
"icons" etc as words that label mind-independent entities -- objects and
related
actions -- seem exempt from doubt, from asking, "Why do I believe it?"
**************
Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.
(http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom0
00300
00000001)
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1335 - Release Date: 19/03/2008
9:54 AM
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.8/1337 - Release Date: 20/03/2008
8:10 PM
