Home› Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options

Semiotics for Blagsta

135678

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Digital. Either "on" or "off".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital

    As opposed to analogue - continuous and variable.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogue

    The form of "word" can have both digital and analogue qualities "Word" but the "meaning" remains constant if it is visual but cannot as easily if it is auditory.
    You're using terms like analogue and digital without understanding what you mean by them

    Read it again and see if you het it this time.
    Give me a quick precis, I don't really have the time to track down and read it. Also try and locate your views in a philosophical and intellectual context

    I will have a go in ten minutes or so once I have read it again.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, I know what digital means thanks. However, in the context in which you are using it, it is nonsense.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, I know what digital means thanks. However, in the context in which you are using it, it is nonsense.

    Explain please. You are saying that if you look at another person and say any word at random then that is not a digital form of communication?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Explain please. You are saying that if you look at another person and say any word at random then that is not a digital form of communication?

    You're not making any sense.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How does meaning remain constant if visual? :confused::confused:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Look at this -


    Blagsta

    Now shut your eyes and see it anyway.

    Got it?

    Now shut your eyes and say "Blagsta" to yourself over and over again.

    Notice that you can maintain the visualisation but that the spoken word has to loop over and over again, because it's digital. Now notice that you can move the word Blagsta back and forwards in your minds eye, making it bigger and smaller and you can even change the colour of it. Like it was analogue, neh?

    Does the meaning change if the word wanders about?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's utter gibberish. Sounds are not digital, they do however have a temporal dimension to them, in a way that static visuals don't. That does not mean they are "digital" though. To say it does shows that you clearly haven't a clue what "digital" means. I can say the word Blagsta in my head in different ways as well. What is your point? Do you have one? Do you have any idea what you're actually on about? The more you post, the more you come across as an idiot.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My god you don't half get hysterical.
    I can say the word Blagsta in my head in different ways as well

    I thought that semiotics says that -
    The meaning of a symbol isn't created suddenly and independantly, which is why this discussion isn't about the effect of a sign on a viewer, it's the inter-relationship between the sign, signifier and signified that creates the commonality.
    (Jim V)

    But you've just told me that you can change the effect of a symbol as personal as your own name without changing the meaning of it. Or is a sexy woman's voice whispering "Blagsta" close to your ear the same effect as a 19 stone hod carrier screaming it at you?
    What is your point? Do you have one

    Only that the fundamental premise of semiotics is bollox. Stuff doen't "mean" anything, it only has an effect.
    Do you have any idea what you're actually on about?

    Yes. Yes I do.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's more me doing inductions on people for specific effect. mainly using the meta model from NLP and some other stuff I learned as a hypnotist. I also try not to distort, generalise or delete in my initial thoughts on a topic but leave that whole part of the process out and jump in halfway. It makes for more interesting discussions as people get lost and argumentative.

    the above from klintock shows him for the twit that he is
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I was talking about the social construct of a word, but I know you're the only person in the world who isn't part of a society so lets not go on with that boredom again
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    the above from klintock shows him for the twit that he is

    Didn't see that coming, Mr. G.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    My god you don't half get hysterical.



    I thought that semiotics says that -

    (Jim V)

    Semiotics is about systems, relationships of symbols, about how we share meaning.
    klintock wrote:
    But you've just told me that you can change the effect of a symbol as personal as your own name without changing the meaning of it

    I've said nothing of the sort.
    klintock wrote:
    Or is a sexy woman's voice whispering "Blagsta" close to your ear the same effect as a 19 stone hod carrier screaming it at you?

    Seeing as I didn't write anything remotely similar to what you think I did, this is irrelevant.

    klintock wrote:
    Only that the fundamental premise of semiotics is bollox. Stuff doen't "mean" anything, it only has an effect.

    But this is exactly the premise of semiotics - symbols do not have inherent meaning. Try reading that link you posted.
    klintock wrote:
    Yes. Yes I do.

    You quite blatantly don't. You're a fool.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MrG wrote:
    the above from klintock shows him for the twit that he is

    I think he's suffering from some kind of psychotic delusion.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    either that or puberty
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Explain to us again how sounds are digital klintock.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    about how we share meaning.

    We almost never do. that's my whole point. As the basis of semiotics is that we can share meaning by some mystical process it has to be bunnies. You can share meaning but trust me it takes frigging ages for each word.
    I've said nothing of the sort.
    I can say the word Blagsta in my head in different ways as well.

    ?
    But this is exactly the premise of semiotics - symbols do not have inherent meaning.
    about how we share meaning.

    So it's about how symbols don't have meaning AND how that meaning is shared. Uh huh.
    You quite blatantly don't. You're a fool.

    How am I being foolish?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think since sounds aren't digital we should move past that example
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How am I being foolish?

    because you cant accept that you are been blatently dellusional
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Proof please Mr. G.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i would provide proof but i cant point at you in person

    you waffle on about all sorts of things, as proven by blagsta and jim V, you have got it wrong

    whenever you are confronted about the error of yoru ways, you go down some errenous tangent, i see threads of understanding from the other people in this thread, you just seem to go on about things without understanding yourself

    plus as i posted something from you earlier
    I also try not to distort, generalise or delete in my initial thoughts on a topic but leave that whole part of the process out and jump in halfway. It makes for more interesting discussions as people get lost and argumentative.

    showing that you intend to mislead and lose people with what you spout
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    We almost never do. that's my whole point. As the basis of semiotics is that we can share meaning by some mystical process it has to be bunnies. You can share meaning but trust me it takes frigging ages for each word.


    If we never share meaning then communication is impossible. Since communication is possible, we must therefore be able to share some meaning. However the fundamental premise of semiotics is that symbols have an effect on people and don't have meanings in and of themselves - the meaning arises from cultural and social convention.

    klintock wrote:
    ?

    How you get from that what you did, I have no idea. I was illustrating how absurd your point about audio being digital was.
    klintock wrote:
    So it's about how symbols don't have meaning AND how that meaning is shared. Uh huh.

    Sorry, what? :confused:
    klintock wrote:
    How am I being foolish?

    You seem incapable of understanding anything.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    showing that you intend to mislead and lose people with what you spout

    Well, I was more making sure you would look a complete prick if you did add a PM to the thread. Which you have done twice.
    I also try not to distort, generalise or delete in my initial thoughts on a topic but leave that whole part of the process out and jump in halfway

    Would it really help if I just wrote out the meta model questions and left you to it?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well, I was more making sure you would look a complete prick if you did add a PM to the thread. Which you have done twice.

    so you are quite happily admitting to the act of intending to mislead me for your own devious and dellusional purposes?

    touche i have you there
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well, I was more making sure you would look a complete prick if you did add a PM to the thread. Which you have done twice.

    your the only one thats looking like a prick at the moment
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If we never share meaning then communication is impossible

    Correct. Complete communication is almost impossible.
    the meaning arises from cultural and social convention.

    As each individual will have a different meaning this can't be true.
    You seem incapable of understanding anything.

    And you seem incapable of explaining anything.

    I was illustrating how absurd your point about audio being digital was.

    Show me how it is analogue.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    you dont seem to understand that his aim was to disprove yours, and then when you have been disproved, try and find some stability in something new

    you are the one who needs to explain what it is now you have been wrong, seen as you were the one who stated alledged fact in the first place
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Correct. Complete communication is almost impossible.

    Well yes, but thats such a truism as to be useless. The fact is that communication does take place to a good enough degree most of the time. Look around you, watch telly, read a book, listen to the radio.
    klintock wrote:
    As each individual will have a different meaning this can't be true.

    *sigh*
    See above.
    klintock wrote:
    And you seem incapable of explaining anything.

    No one else on this thread is having trouble with my posts. Only you it seems.


    klintock wrote:
    Show me how it is analogue.

    Well it is analogue. Digital means that something exists in discrete states or units. Sound is a continously varying waveform, analogue. Read those definitions you posted.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well it is analogue. Digital means that something exists in discrete states or units. Sound is a continously varying waveform, analogue. Read those definitions you posted.

    What are you, a whale?

    You start off silent, then you turn the sound on - then you run through the sound by varying pitch, tone etc along strict rules and discrete steps to form the word you want - and then you are silent.

    It goes - ON --stays ON and modifies---OFF. It's digital. It could be argued that it's analogue once it's started but the whole process is itself a digital one.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Read those defintions you posted. Sound is not digital. It is analogue. Just because you say it is, doesn't make it so.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    It goes - ON --stays ON and modifies---OFF.

    This is where you're going wrong - if somethign modifies in a meaningful way, it is analogue.
    An analog or analogue signal is any continuously variable signal. It differs from a digital signal in that small fluctuations in the signal are meaningful.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogue

    A link which you posted. Maybe you should read the links you post.
Sign In or Register to comment.