I was fairly sure as I wrote my animadversion that it would draw the kind of dismissal you produced, but I thought it was worth posting anyway because there was a chance it would save some lister from wasting time pondering phrases like those below.
I agree that ideally when I reject, say, the suppressed assumption that something called "signs" ever act, or ever "have" something called a "referent", I should reprint the entire argument lying behind my rejection. But that would be tedious beyond acceptance. I felt a little like a security guard telling people to leave the building immediately because it's about to be buried in a mud slide. I'd rather get them out of the building than keep them in it while I explain all the rationale behind my fears of impending mud. Similarly, however, I think you have every right to reject my warning as inadequately supported. "Here mimetic idealism and the apparatus of patronism are both part of the interpretant. Icon is construed here as a visual sign, a portrait as a sign that denotes by resemblance. Since the possible state the portrait sign denotes and resembles is the prior act of portrayal, its relation to what it denotes and resembles is indexical as well as iconic. The assumption here is that the portrait's claims to iconicity and indexicality are fictitious." In a message dated 12/7/09 1:51:12 PM, [email protected] writes: > In a message dated 12/7/09 11:28:02 AM, [email protected] writes: > > > > The effects of the b poseb are something most of us grasped and laughed > > about whenever we picked up a high school yearbook: the feeling of > > shallow, > > cookie-mold identity, of conformity, of clichC)d submission to clichC)d > > technique. > > > > We aren't talking high school year book here. This is more > complicated. You want to get more deeply into which phrases I quoted > from Berger > are "either attempts to reword a triviality in order to make it seem > profound, > or attempts to sell flatly bogus notions." or do you want to go talk to > Miller? You have been facile. I'm no admirer of "techno-material > practices" > but the rest of it seems a necessary repetition of terms to describe > what > he was going to discuss if you mean the systems/convention/practices > sequence. I also thought it was an unusually clear description of Peirce. > Kate Sullivan
