Object-signifiers: Objects whose purpose (purpose?) is to define other objects and thus they are held to the same real-world rules as the objects they define, even thought they are not beholden to real-world rules themselves for any other reason save this intentionality. An electronic schematic is just lines on paper. If it has a short circuit in it, it is not a schematic in the same way. It gets relegated back to lines-on-paper status. Yet it is still somehow distinct from babel, gibberish. In a certain sense, the only difference between an object-signifier and it’s intended target is one of material. In this case, ink versus copper. In the ink, the electricity flowing through the circuit is (only) implied. What is the role of intention in all this anyway? Do signs exist in the absence of intentionality?
Direction of signification: And what does direction of intentionality (writing or reading, transmitting or receiving) matter? Must both transmission and reception occur in order for there to be signification? (re-read Peirce)
Location of translation: a place, physical or logical, wherein definitional acts occur to encourage the use of a particular family of signs. The legend of a map is a location of translation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment