[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Body expression as sign.

Thanks for that, Larry, these different theories of semiotics/semiology are very confusing. Personally, I am going to stick to Peirce's categories and use Gadamers's with a health warning.

One powerful characteristic of Peirce's approach is the following:

Larry Purss wrote:
For Gadamer a sign is a tool. Conceived *as* a sign [tool] a word is an instrument that the SUBJECT employs for its OWN ends.Gadamer asks, is it sufficient to think of language *just* or *merely* as a MEANS of communication?

For Peirce a sign is not a means of communication at all. The sign is part of a triad along with interpretant and object, and there is no subject there. For French semiology the sign is a message sent by the subject to the object, and this is the source of the idealism Gadamer complains of. Peirce's standpoint opens up natural processes and aesthetic processes for objective analysis and gives an objective basis for communication as well.

xmca mailing list