But the language is not the primary referent for Harris. Anything at all may be created as a sign for Harris, a word, a gesture, a sound, a thing, anything, and it's those created signs that establish the communication (in a given context, which always changes because everything is encapsulated in time. Verbal language is but one form of communication. For Harris any form of communication may be integrated to the others. Thus pictures can be integrated with words but so too can words be integrated with pictures; sounds to words, words to sounds, etc. They all work together in different ways and contexts for Harris. Harris' view is not the standard linguistics because it rejects the supremacy of the word. I would like to have your analysis of Harris....maybe his book, The Necessity of Artspeak.
Francis may be partially correct re Harris but she does have a position to defend, Peirce and his tokens, etc. Did you have that martini at the Hilton bar yet...in honor of angst-filled artists? wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, February 8, 2011 6:11:51 PM Subject: Re: Signs of Signs of Signs But we do tend to translate all communication into language - what Lacan and Hiedigger posit as a symbolic order - a means to control our understanding of that aspect of what we experience or imagine that might be shared - in this manner the symbolic language of images, as well as things like body language or certain aspects of music and mathematics might be thought of as being signifiers whose referent is still another sign system On 2/8/11 5:16 PM, "William Conger" <[email protected]> wrote: communication --
