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.
Options
Semiotics for Blagsta
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Let's have a laugh with Blagsta.
Here's the thread. What point do you want to be making?
Here's the thread. What point do you want to be making?
0
Comments
So, anytime you fancy doing it in future you have your own thread to come to.
Enjoy.
Please explain why you think it is "bollocks". Considering semiotics is the study of language, signs and signifiers and one of its main principles is that words don't have meanings in and of themselves but are part of a structure with an arbitary relationship between sign, signifier and signified (you might like to look up Ferdinand de Saussure sometime), I'd have thought it would be entirely relevent to your points. Or is the problem that you don't like to admit that you don't actually have a clue what you're on about?
yeah I looked it up. unfortunately the idea that signs/words have more than a personal meaning is ridiculous.
To understand how language works -
I say "fire" you go inside your memory and select some representation of fire in any one of your sensory choices -
You might have seen a fire burning, smelled it, heard the crackle of it, felt the heat or any combination of these inside your mind. This is how we make sense of words. If you were synesthesic you might have tasted it as well. This happens very very quickly.
The command to access that experience does not have to be the word "fire" it can be "fuego" or "cheese". And it is a command. You have to imagine what I write in order to make sense of the words you are currently reading.
Some parts of this are stored in conscious awareness, some parts are stored in unconscious awareness, or in the different hemispheres of the brain. Each word has a meaning to you and to you alone. The fact that others have meanings which are close to yours let's you do cool things like run from a burning building or whatever. Once you get beyond stuff that can be commonly sensed you are talking to yourself alone more often than not.
I will just provide links at this point so you can verify -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformational-generative_grammar
http://brain.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/125/2/361
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro98/202s98-paper1/Ball.html
Semiotics seems to be, on the other hand.......bollocks.
Errr...what on earth are you on about? You have neatly sidestepped why you think semiotics is bollocks. Let's try again shall we? Why do you think it is "bollocks"?
Your links spectacularly fail to back up what little point you have.
Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema
okay dokay.
What part of my answer are you stuck on Blagsta?
Feeling emotions/body sensations dependant on visual stimulus is a type of synesthesia. No two peoples set of sensations will be the same. Some individuals will not have any. Semiotics (I apologise if my hurried reading of the drivel is incorrect) claims to derive meaning from this process. I don't think that things(stimuli) have meaning, I think they have effects and people have meanings that are entirely personal for those effects.
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/syne.html
Errrr no. I don't have this problem. The fact that some people do have it shows that there is no meaning in symbols. There are people who taste shapes, see smells etc. The medical problems from synesthesia come from perceiving the world differently from others. If everyone tasted shapes then the "problem" wouldn't be one, it would be normal.
What most, or a majority of people do is see/feel. As in see woman/man and then feel aroused. This obviously does not have to be the case. As one woman can produce many different responses from many different men, so can one symbol or sign produce the same number of different responses.
The meaning of a symbol or sign must therefore be contained within the experience of the viewer, and not in the symbol. Hence the rejection of semiotics.
the meaning of a symbol could be explained from within the symbol, except those with a problem do not see it that way
And surely the fact that people can be diagnoised with a medical condition because they don't percieve things normally shows there is a mesurable norm. I think the link actually questions everything you're saying rather than supports it.
Yes, it is. The fact that most people respond a certain way to stimuli means that they will react in a similar fashion. They all come to the similar conclusions independently of one another because they are using the same process as each other. (More or less) Blind men don't get upset by swastikas.
Each and every individual has a slightly different internal response. Only when the internal response is radically different is it noticed.
Quick experiment. Think of the word "love". Do you really think that it creates the same physical and internal experiences as the next man has?
What is "love" to you? Is it something you feel? Something you see? Or is it a noise? Your own specific set of characteristics for love will be highly personal, individual to you.
For one person "love" might be an increased heart-rate with a rise in temperature accross the face and a shortness of breath. For another it might be a series of fantasy pictures (in the minds eye) of them and their lover wile their body goes and relaxes.
Working all that backwards seems to be "semiotics". Saying that one object can create the same sensations in all/some or even two of it's viewers is ridiculous.
it can do though, doesnt mean it HAS to
and as for love, you ever heard of words which can have multiple meaning, like
lead = is it a metal or and action
Another layer of complexity to add to the mix doesn't prove the point does it?
No words have meaning. If meaning was contained in the words then I would understand all languages automatically. As I have to learn what is "meant" by the words used, then I must be the one who holds the "meaning".
and the meaning of the words once learnt is universla to all ofthose that speak the same language, therefore shooting you down yet again
Two things -
First of all I showed how "meaning" isn't duplicated between people even on the most basic level. My whole point is that people speak their own private language that has similarities with others, but is not exactly the same. Where there is a degree of overlap there can be useful communication.
Second - in order to shoot me down again, you would have had to do it a first time.
my mistake you did it yourself
a) run into what we all call a tree as hard as you can, and then tell me when you are in A&E that trees dont exist
people dont speak their own private language, you do realise that things like the websters dictionary is universal to all? its the same book to everyone?
This is utter gibberish.
You've utterly misunderstood semiotics. The whole point is that symbols don't have inherent meanings.
i know, i doubt he actually understands anything about it
More gibberish. Semiotics doesn't say anything of the sort.
Even more gibberish. Yes, symbols don't have inherent meanings, meaning is in the structure, the relationships of symbols. If it was only you who held the "meaning", communication would be impossible.
No one has to shoot you down, you do it yourself quite adequately.
i hope he aint a pop fan, i couldnt be doing with show me the way to amarillo after all that tripe ive read of his
Oh dear. You do know that you can only have a tree if you are not looking at branches or forests don't you? On the other hand if we changed the word "matress" for "tree" and stuck to it then a "tree" would become a "matress". The word then, is not linked to the thing it symbolises.
I am thinking of a rock. Now you think of a rock.
I was thinking of a piece of grey/blue granite with the light from above. Were you thinking of the exact same thing as I was?
Were you fuck.
There would be some element of similarity but it's incredibly unlikely that you were thinking of the same thing i was. No imagine the amount of agreement we would have when you start saying "Semiotics". Little? None?
The fact that you need a dictionary to agree definitions proves that words don't just have one meaning. For the sake of convenience we might take "Websters" completely arbitary choice as being most useful.
That's fine by me, but it still requires me and you to learn "meaning" independently of each other so we can communicate effectively.