The limits of the sign
in [Logic]
|
Prev: last post of this book; future reminder #600 Correcting Math
Next: Download & Read your favorite ebooks with eReader JE200
From: John Jones on 14 Apr 2010 18:09 INTRO Paul deMann said that mathematical symbols aren't symbols per se but are "semiotic indices". You can take it from me that he knew what he was talking about. For the rest of us, they are mathematical symbols or signs. We await release from our state of wretched epistemological dearth. My question is this. Does a sign, by virtue of being a sign, have limits to what it can express? DISCUSSION "A sign can represent anything we like - it has no limits to what it can express", I hear everyone say. But are we sure? Because, I have found some limits to what a sign can express. Here are some signs and their limits: EXAMPLES 1. "Infinity". This sign demonstrates the REFERENTIAL limits of a sign. A sign makes what is not, appear; or makes a thing, another thing. Likewise, Infinity is either a vacuous concept (e.g., nothing at all or a list of mathematical procedures), or an abbreviation for a set of romantic interludes. 2. "God". God, as for any solitary or incommensurable object that is represented by a sign, isn't countable or identifiable. This demonstrates the ONTOLOGICAL limits of a sign. That is, a sign makes what is not identifiable in any circumstances, identifiable. 3. "Mental Disorder". No-one knows what mental disorder is. But everyone knows what to do about mental disorder. This demonstrates the MEANING limits of a sign - a sign can be meaningless, yet still have a use. 5. The swastika. Here we see the sign break out of its referential role and become a mandala or performative, or an invocation. This demonstrates the PHYSICAL limits of signs. Referential signs are always physically extended, but the swastika, etc, is not. Mandala-signs, therefore, would be the best way of showing non-worldly, solitary or incommensurable objects. There are many more examples, I am sure.
From: Akira Bergman on 14 Apr 2010 19:24 On Apr 15, 8:09 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > INTRO > Paul deMann said that mathematical symbols aren't symbols per se but are > "semiotic indices". You can take it from me that he knew what he was > talking about. For the rest of us, they are mathematical symbols or > signs. We await release from our state of wretched epistemological dearth.. > > My question is this. Does a sign, by virtue of being a sign, have limits > to what it can express? > > DISCUSSION > "A sign can represent anything we like - it has no limits to what it can > express", I hear everyone say. > But are we sure? Because, I have found some limits to what a sign can > express. Here are some signs and their limits: > > EXAMPLES > 1. "Infinity". This sign demonstrates the REFERENTIAL limits of a sign. > A sign makes what is not, appear; or makes a thing, another thing. > Likewise, Infinity is either a vacuous concept (e.g., nothing at all or > a list of mathematical procedures), or an abbreviation for a set of > romantic interludes. > > 2. "God". God, as for any solitary or incommensurable object that is > represented by a sign, isn't countable or identifiable. This > demonstrates the ONTOLOGICAL limits of a sign. That is, a sign makes > what is not identifiable in any circumstances, identifiable. > > 3. "Mental Disorder". No-one knows what mental disorder is. But everyone > knows what to do about mental disorder. This demonstrates the MEANING > limits of a sign - a sign can be meaningless, yet still have a use. > > 5. The swastika. Here we see the sign break out of its referential role > and become a mandala or performative, or an invocation. This > demonstrates the PHYSICAL limits of signs. Referential signs are always > physically extended, but the swastika, etc, is not. Mandala-signs, > therefore, would be the best way of showing non-worldly, solitary or > incommensurable objects. > > There are many more examples, I am sure. Australian use of 'yes' and 'no', one after the other, is one of the strangest. It even makes sense sometimes. It seems to satisfy a need to express space and negative space at the same time. While many words and symbols oscillate in their meanings and evolve, there are many others that stay put, like '1', '0', 'circle', 'blue'. Fuzzy ones sometimes strike a stable meaning and solidify, other times solid ones evaporate and join the fuzzy dance once more, resembling thermodynamics of matter.
From: bigfletch8 on 14 Apr 2010 23:11 On Apr 15, 7:24 am, Akira Bergman <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 15, 8:09 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > INTRO > > Paul deMann said that mathematical symbols aren't symbols per se but are > > "semiotic indices". You can take it from me that he knew what he was > > talking about. For the rest of us, they are mathematical symbols or > > signs. We await release from our state of wretched epistemological dearth. > > > My question is this. Does a sign, by virtue of being a sign, have limits > > to what it can express? > > > DISCUSSION > > "A sign can represent anything we like - it has no limits to what it can > > express", I hear everyone say. > > But are we sure? Because, I have found some limits to what a sign can > > express. Here are some signs and their limits: > > > EXAMPLES > > 1. "Infinity". This sign demonstrates the REFERENTIAL limits of a sign. > > A sign makes what is not, appear; or makes a thing, another thing. > > Likewise, Infinity is either a vacuous concept (e.g., nothing at all or > > a list of mathematical procedures), or an abbreviation for a set of > > romantic interludes. > > > 2. "God". God, as for any solitary or incommensurable object that is > > represented by a sign, isn't countable or identifiable. This > > demonstrates the ONTOLOGICAL limits of a sign. That is, a sign makes > > what is not identifiable in any circumstances, identifiable. > > > 3. "Mental Disorder". No-one knows what mental disorder is. But everyone > > knows what to do about mental disorder. This demonstrates the MEANING > > limits of a sign - a sign can be meaningless, yet still have a use. > > > 5. The swastika. Here we see the sign break out of its referential role > > and become a mandala or performative, or an invocation. This > > demonstrates the PHYSICAL limits of signs. Referential signs are always > > physically extended, but the swastika, etc, is not. Mandala-signs, > > therefore, would be the best way of showing non-worldly, solitary or > > incommensurable objects. > > > There are many more examples, I am sure. > > Australian use of 'yes' and 'no', one after the other, is one of the > strangest. It even makes sense sometimes. It seems to satisfy a need > to express space and negative space at the same time. > > While many words and symbols oscillate in their meanings and evolve, > there are many others that stay put, like '1', '0', 'circle', 'blue'. > > Fuzzy ones sometimes strike a stable meaning and solidify, other times > solid ones evaporate and join the fuzzy dance once more, resembling > thermodynamics of matter.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The 'yes-no' trend appeared fairly recently. Often when I see such 'appearances' of such phrases, it is often an indicater in a shift in the group consciousness.In this case, an expression of greater balance. As far as symbols go, they were made by the mind for mental reference. You are doing a 'Pirsig' once more, (interestingly, his personal symbol was the 'infinity' sign.) He tried to fit relativity (mind stuff) into his spiritual awareness. It doesnt fit, and sent him 'nutty' for a while.You are constantly doing the same thing, and frustration will constantly come about. BOfL
From: Akira Bergman on 15 Apr 2010 02:31 On Apr 15, 1:11 pm, "bigflet...(a)gmail.com" <bigflet...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 15, 7:24 am, Akira Bergman <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 15, 8:09 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > INTRO > > > Paul deMann said that mathematical symbols aren't symbols per se but are > > > "semiotic indices". You can take it from me that he knew what he was > > > talking about. For the rest of us, they are mathematical symbols or > > > signs. We await release from our state of wretched epistemological dearth. > > > > My question is this. Does a sign, by virtue of being a sign, have limits > > > to what it can express? > > > > DISCUSSION > > > "A sign can represent anything we like - it has no limits to what it can > > > express", I hear everyone say. > > > But are we sure? Because, I have found some limits to what a sign can > > > express. Here are some signs and their limits: > > > > EXAMPLES > > > 1. "Infinity". This sign demonstrates the REFERENTIAL limits of a sign. > > > A sign makes what is not, appear; or makes a thing, another thing. > > > Likewise, Infinity is either a vacuous concept (e.g., nothing at all or > > > a list of mathematical procedures), or an abbreviation for a set of > > > romantic interludes. > > > > 2. "God". God, as for any solitary or incommensurable object that is > > > represented by a sign, isn't countable or identifiable. This > > > demonstrates the ONTOLOGICAL limits of a sign. That is, a sign makes > > > what is not identifiable in any circumstances, identifiable. > > > > 3. "Mental Disorder". No-one knows what mental disorder is. But everyone > > > knows what to do about mental disorder. This demonstrates the MEANING > > > limits of a sign - a sign can be meaningless, yet still have a use. > > > > 5. The swastika. Here we see the sign break out of its referential role > > > and become a mandala or performative, or an invocation. This > > > demonstrates the PHYSICAL limits of signs. Referential signs are always > > > physically extended, but the swastika, etc, is not. Mandala-signs, > > > therefore, would be the best way of showing non-worldly, solitary or > > > incommensurable objects. > > > > There are many more examples, I am sure. > > > Australian use of 'yes' and 'no', one after the other, is one of the > > strangest. It even makes sense sometimes. It seems to satisfy a need > > to express space and negative space at the same time. > > > While many words and symbols oscillate in their meanings and evolve, > > there are many others that stay put, like '1', '0', 'circle', 'blue'. > > > Fuzzy ones sometimes strike a stable meaning and solidify, other times > > solid ones evaporate and join the fuzzy dance once more, resembling > > thermodynamics of matter.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > The 'yes-no' trend appeared fairly recently. Often when I see such > 'appearances' of such phrases, it is often an indicater in a shift in > the group consciousness.In this case, an expression of greater > balance. > > As far as symbols go, they were made by the mind for mental reference. > You are doing a 'Pirsig' once more, (interestingly, his personal > symbol was the 'infinity' sign.) > > He tried to fit relativity (mind stuff) into his spiritual awareness. > It doesnt fit, and sent him 'nutty' for a while.You are constantly > doing the same thing, and frustration will constantly come about. > > BOfL Thanks for the well wishes. I have not read Pirsig. He seems quite a different character compared to me. I ran away from the military, he enlisted and served in Korea. A major difference. An indication of a captured and weak mind. Spirit and matter are two aspects of the same thing. All expressions of existence. Matter can not be proven to exist, so as the self. Unification is possible, so as separation. Science and math illiteracy scares and pushes most people away. If you want to find the truth, you should be daring enough to try anything for it, including learning math and science. Don't be frustrated by them, they are the accumulated, tried and tested wisdom of humanity. They are worth paying attention. It is never too late. Spiritual mumbo-jumbo can only go so far. Remove all political wedges and unify your mind.
From: Tronscend on 15 Apr 2010 07:11
"Akira Bergman" <akirabergman(a)gmail.com> skrev i melding news:47e3cc08-8ef2-4ca3-891c-b19223bcb988(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... On Apr 15, 8:09 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: ...... >While many words and symbols oscillate in their meanings and evolve, >there are many others that stay put, like '1', '0', 'circle', 'blue'. Makes you feel blue, doesn't it? T |