On 4/30/07, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The linguistic sign bears NO RELATION WHATSOEVER to the signified.
true
The only signs that bear relation to, and to some extent reflect, reality and real things are graphics [maps/cartoons/geometry/ icons etc] and images [photos, statues, detailed drawings, sound recordings etc.].
What does "warm" look like? How about "angry" or "happy"? Can you draw a picture of "abstract" or "indeterminate"? I understand (i think) where you are coming from, and I agree wholeheartedly - up to the point where you seem to imply that a picture of something is the totality of its character. I don't believe that's what you are saying, but you did not specify how far your analogy should be taken.
A picture is not worth a thousand words, it is worth an INFINITY of words.
Careful throwing around INFINITY like that :) Last time I looked, my desktop resolution was only so high, and that while there are a great number of permutations of meaning that can be inferred from those pictures, eventually the value curve of all that can be said probably looks logarithmic. Concepts (should?) grow like crystals, with new ideas along the incomplete edges. They're never really complete as long as new ideas continue to be incorporated, but only those (ideas) that follow the existing structure and pattern can fit. Does anyone have a more formal definition of the concept tree mentioned earlier in this thread? (A url to a whitepaper or something would be great) ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
