At 12:27 AM -0500 2/15/01, Ana Marjanovic Shane wrote:
>Meanings are never impartial and neutral: they reflect every
>possible aspect of the THREE way relationship between: the
>"reality", the one who uses a sign to signify it and the one to whom
>this sign is sent.
>Bakhtin claimed that:
>"The logic of consciousness is the logic of ideological
>communications, of the semiotic interaction of the social group" .
I think that we have to recognize that all three entities that you
identify are aspects of the same continuum, they are, as Eco (1984)
says, different segmentations of the continuum. Second, I worry about
when people talk about sender (S) and recipient (R), because of the
notion that a sign is ontologically stable a priori. What the nature
of the sign is that R perceives can, according to my research, not be
taken for granted, not just in 'meaning' aspects but in its very
physical aspects. For example, scientist or any other person
perceptually carve a graphical display in different ways, giving them
different physical signs.... and of course, interpretations.
Furthermore, in the same physics class, students disagree about what
was seen in a demonstration ('reality'). So when the teacher talks
theory but students haven't seen what he expected them to see, we
have another problem because of the ontological flexibility of
'reality'...
Michael
------------------------------------------------------ Wolff-Michael Roth Lansdowne Professor Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A548 Tel: (250) 721-7885 University of Victoria FAX: (250) 472-4616 Victoria, BC, V8W 3N4 Email: mroth@uvic.ca http://www.educ.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/ ----------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 01:01:14 PST