The naked human and their reactions as a "sign" and most natural
thing are the
are probably the only signs that can be considered global.
mando
On Jul 2, 2009, at 9:45 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Frances, you must not believe that because "No other member has
MENTIONED
any confusion" about what you term "the meaning of the word
'sign'", that
therefore there IS no confusion.
Consider the following passage from a recent posting of yours. My
guess is
you received no mention whatever of the passage from any lister. Do
you
really believe this silence justifies your apparent belief there
was no
reader-confusion about what you had in mind?:
" these subsigns would correctly be immediate syntactic
actisigns, and not immediate semantic qualisigns like their
referential
tones and marks. The issue then is what dynamic or energetic
intermediate
object is signified by the preparatory subsign to a mark, and what
proper sign is
subsequently realized by this subordinate act of productive
signification.
Such an interpretation of marks wrongly and merely as immediate
syntactic
representations, and not correctly as immediate semantic
referentions,
subsequently turns the quasi marks as actisigns justly into nothing
more than
vital indexic signs like signals and symptoms caused by some
organism."
I guarantee this: there was much confusion. Moreover, even if it
were the
case that no reader FELT confusion, that would be no proof that
there WAS no
confusion. I have in my day often felt confident about my grasp of
someone's
concept or argument, only later to discover I had it "all balled up".
Similarly, the absence of any mention of concern about whether or
not there
is "general agreement on the meaning of the term "sign"" is not
evidence
that there must therefore be general agreement. The recent thread,
"Marks",
saw many, many exchanges before it began to become clear that
listers were all
entertaining more or less different notions of a "mark".
"To prove this claim of mine, members may wish to post a short
message on
what they think the meaning of the word or term "sign" might be."
I claim you've put the question wrongly here. What you should ask
is that
each give a description of his or her notion behind the word
'mark'. That way
you can excuse your ignoring of my repeated argument that words
don't have
meanings -- and of all the many implications of that argument.
You say:
"My own attempt to define a "sign" will still follow later in due
course."
Alas, I see I have been unavailing in my argument that the "due
course" for
that definition was long ago when you first began using the term.
Your
justification for not supplying it then was evidently that you assumed
everyone, upon reading the word 'sign', would find arising in their
minds the
"same" notion as yours. Oy.
Also, don't forget your notion of "global theory" as distinguished
from
"special theory".
"The list debate and archive should both benefit."
**************
It's raining cats and dogs -- Come to PawNation, a place
where pets rule! (http://www.pawnation.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000008)
