Agreed. Harris does not, as Barthes does, seem to feel a "sign" has a "THE meaning" that has to be "decoded". But I find Harris a bit blurry about "signs". When he says a sign "acquires a meaning", what he should have in mind is that it will occasion notions in observers but those notions will differ in varying degrees from one observer to another (because, among other reasons, no two observers have the exact same "context"). And I feel it's a bit vacuous to imply that every single observed datum is a "sign", a view that Harris's position forces him into.
In a message dated 5/26/12 7:52:46 PM, [email protected] writes: > Re what you say below.That's precisely what Hsrris does NOT do. He never > says > there is stable sign. > wc > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sat, May 26, 2012 12:11:44 PM > Subject: "Signs" > > The more one looks at the writings of Roy Harris, Roland Barthes, and > others, the more one concludes that for them just about everything we can > observe is a "sign". If we stipulate that by a "sign" we mean an > observable that > > occasions a notion, theirs is a defensible stance. > > The confusion enters when we believe there is a "the" notion for any given > "sign". All a sign can occasion in me is a "meaning/notion" for ME. It's > can > be very different for you. When thinkers like Barthes believe they are > "decoding" a sign, finding its "real" "meaning", they go badly wrong.
