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
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Huh? I give reasons for everything. Fucks sake mate we are what 13 pages into this and i have given it a pop all the way along.
Oh yeah. Even if you are unsure about something you know for definite that you are unsure.
How can I misunderstand semiotics when it says that meaning is held by me. Anything I decide that semiotics is, it has to be, or semiotics itself falls. So either it does mean what I say it does, and it's bollocks, or it doesn't mean what I say it does, and it's bollocks.
?
No you don't, you just argue in circles.
More circular arguing.
Eh? You're arguing that meaning is held by you. Semiotics says that yes, ultimate meaning is in our heads, but there is enough overlap within the system of signs (which is a social/cultural convention) for communication to take place.
This is gibberish.
:banghead:
You haven't said what order you think semiotics says things happen in and what you think is the right order.
this is like debating with a 5 year old
But absolutely correct, nonetheless. It's like these idiots who tell me they are always inconsistent.
Given that I can change meaning of a sign for myself through conscious intervention, and that the function of language isn't to spread meaning but to get responses I reject semiotics as inaccurate.
To you. Not enough overlap for "communication" to take place?
Saying that a = a is not an argument.
Eh? You can change what "dog" means to? You can change what the Nike swoosh means to you? Nonsense. Yes, you can consciously change these things with some thought, but they still trigger off thoughts in you that you can't immediately control. And you can't change the cultural meanings yourself in your own head. The Nike swoosh has a certain cultural meaning. For some people they think of basketball, Michael Jordan and cool trainers, other people will think that, along with other stuff to do with sweatshops etc. But to say that you change the meaning is nonsense.
I reject this statement. Language is used to communicate. Otherwise we wouldn't be here on this interweb thingy.
No, its just gibberish. BTW, you've failed to answer a question.
I didn't say that a=a.
Hypnotist. It's a piece of piss when you know how. I can change it for others to as well, let's say to make someone bark like a dog at the nike sign.
Sorry I thought it was a statement. I have no idea what answer you are looking for.
Yes you have. You just admitted that you argue in circles.
You're actually quite delusional aren't you?
Do you need it spelled out?
Huh?
You are the one who sees things that aren't there.
If you read this you might notice that it's a statement. You haven't said what colour is your left elephant either.
You agreed with me when I said you were arguing in circles.
Eh?
If you can't work out what response I wanted, then you're even more stupid than I gave you credit for.
On a small side issue yes.
Nm.
See this is why semiotics is bollocks, you wanted a response and expected one, but the meaning of your communication was quite different. Thank you for proving my point.
Nicely wriggled there, but I suggest you go back and read it again.
:chin:
All its done is prove that you're waaaay out of your depth.
Snap! It's unclear at best.
How so?
To someone who's being deliberately obstruse 'cos they've been backed into a corner.
You put a "?" when I said that your statement was meaningless without further explanation. I then stated why it was meaningless. If you didn't understand that little exchange, then you're an idiot. The meaning is perfectly clear, you're just being pedantic because you're waaaay out of your depth. And you know it.
Any clarification?
What order do you think semiotics says things happen in? What order do you think they happen in?
I dunno why I'm bothering with this, it was quite obvious anyway
Yeah I know, but its more entertaining than Eastenders.
Semiotics says that words etc have a "real world" counterpart - that is that things that are "really there" are given names and/or signs.
I say it's the other way around, that there is nothing there until someone comes up with the concept first, and then it gets created.
Does it? Can you provide a quote? What do you mean anyway? That a tree isn't "really there"?
What gets created?
Do I have to? You should frigging know mate.
Yep. It's just a way of looking at things.
Whatever you want. This is pretty simple. Man thinks of comb...man invents comb by manipulation - combs come into being.
Yes. Everything else you've said about what you think semiotics is has been wrong.
This makes no sense.
Neither does this. You're saying that trees didn't exist until someone thought of them?
Quality. Yes that is exactly what I am saying.
In the case of a tree, that is a distinction that has been ripped from the totality of an experience. In the case of a comb, the exact configuration to make up a "comb" didn't exist until someone thought it up and then manipulated physical reality to create the first "comb".
The main problem with this is that you can only add distinctions, once they are made they cannot be taken away, and everyone thinks of it backwards, so doesn't use the damn procedure as usefully as they might.
bullshit and you know it!