408
| |
348
| |
Nov 10, 2013, 5 comments
|
304
|
May 31, 2007
|
239
|
Intention and Architecture, by Carolyn Fahey
8 years ago
Showing posts with label semiotics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label semiotics. Show all posts
Saturday, November 21, 2015
Links to my Most Popular posts
TITLE / VIEWS
GOOOD GUIDE ME VSVSVI should stretch, and avoid adventure. Known as Philosopher, Artist, Inventor, Poet. I live in New Haven near Yale University though I have never been an official student. Known mainly as a writer at Quora.com and as an Amazon author.
Saturday, December 13, 2014
Symbols I have Collected Over the Years
LEFT: A symbol of dimensional philosophy, tentatively called "The Aperture". I have used it as a logo for The Dimensional Encyclopedia.
LEFT: "The Amalgam". I used this as one of the major stages of personal development in my psychology book, a stage that precedes The Universalist and The Integrator.
LEFT: "The Arc of History". From a dream.
LEFT: "Dream Door" from earlier work. The frown shape actually represents an entrance onto the sublime through inverted forces.
I also have a book of symbolism in the works. The nearest thing I have published so far is The Book of Uniques (Coppedge, 2014).
GOOOD GUIDE ME VSVSVI should stretch, and avoid adventure. Known as Philosopher, Artist, Inventor, Poet. I live in New Haven near Yale University though I have never been an official student. Known mainly as a writer at Quora.com and as an Amazon author.
Saturday, July 6, 2013
Gnomonic Symbols
How To Interpret the Following Symbols?The gridi-form structure appears to be composing or decomposing. It might be a symbol for language, graphical games, or physical structure. It appears to offer a manifestation of reality, a manifestation of secrets, an access to manifestation, and a secret access. These parts describe a two-dimensional pyramid.
This more dimensional figure looks like a metallic orb with a path winding into it. It seems to express a duality. Secondly, there is a transposition of nature and architecture. It also looks like a woman's head. It could represent culture. Looking at the lines for independent value from representation, there is a latched quality which suggests mechanics and then again perhaps a plan of winding paths. It looks like a kind of marked serpent. Perhaps it represents the unknown.
Combining the three figures, we might find a structure that is paradoxically complete. The snake becomes the garden, the stones have variation, the grid is partially complete from more than one angle.
GOOOD GUIDE ME VSVSVI should stretch, and avoid adventure. Known as Philosopher, Artist, Inventor, Poet. I live in New Haven near Yale University though I have never been an official student. Known mainly as a writer at Quora.com and as an Amazon author.
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Semiotics 2
I'm writing the following with the understanding that when and if I attain academic standing sometime in my life, this may go into a book in one form or another. I'm only offering this free on the internet under the condition that anyone who uses it will cite the source (Terrapin, Eucaleh. The Motist Agenda, 2007) in the way they would with a book or other formalized manuscript. That said, here's a little more on my understanding of semiotics, and the implications of semiotic thinking:
Assuming perfection, simplicity is waste(~1). The exception is qualities.
To seek perfection in simplicity or singularity (in the sense of low dimensionalism) is to minimize waste, but only insofar as perfection in an absolute sense has not been achieved.
It is worth noting that in a categorical sense singularity is imperfect outside the context of a breadth of opportunities and manifestations. (I.e. it is useless to think of individual identity or symbolism apart from the lives it might live, or the field of associations for the symbol.)
Singularity without a context becomes impotent, or ceases to be singular. The being or reality that does not extend beyond itself must be simple, perfect, or a form of waste. Through consciousness, a being extends through the simple or wasteful towards qualities that do not change. The qualities themselves are simple, since they are the least wasteful and simplest presence of perfection in reality. However, this is not to say that qualities are most perfect, for the qualities themselves have an object without which no consciousness could perceive them.
In some sense, the object is a thought. Yet simply by being a thought this does not make it a conscious thought. The activity of thinking gives life to a thought as though the thought had been a fixed sign brought to life.
Often the fixed shape of a thought takes form prior to its consciousness in a thinking process. However, the process of "signing" may be adopted ona conscious level as a means of informing the direction of the cognitive process, specifically in corroborating diverse notions towards a new realization built upon the intentions and principles of previous insights. In other words, a similar system approaches one symbol and the next.
Thus in the context of this network of signs, each being itself a thought, thinking takes place through one of two actions:
1. A transformation is made between two previously existing signs or
2. Through a comparison of two or more previous signs, a new sign is formed.(~2)
In the sense that I understand them, the first type of thinking is constructive and is a less conscious form of sign building. The second kind is the mark of special intelligence and even genius.
Footnotes
1. This has implications, for example in the choice to build houses independent of one another. Designing a perfect conglomerate is far more valuable than divided simplicity because of the nature of hierarchies. It may also ultimately be more efficient, e.g. if there is only one plan there is less conflict. Nevertheless it may run against the grain of standardization, fair market economy, and minimal input from specialists.
2. For simplicity's sake we may do well to consider that a new sign is not a new graphical symbol, but rather a new understanding that comes through the association of two different symbols (either of which may in itself exist as an abstract understanding rather than a visually or tactically percieved object).
Assuming perfection, simplicity is waste(~1). The exception is qualities.
To seek perfection in simplicity or singularity (in the sense of low dimensionalism) is to minimize waste, but only insofar as perfection in an absolute sense has not been achieved.
It is worth noting that in a categorical sense singularity is imperfect outside the context of a breadth of opportunities and manifestations. (I.e. it is useless to think of individual identity or symbolism apart from the lives it might live, or the field of associations for the symbol.)
Singularity without a context becomes impotent, or ceases to be singular. The being or reality that does not extend beyond itself must be simple, perfect, or a form of waste. Through consciousness, a being extends through the simple or wasteful towards qualities that do not change. The qualities themselves are simple, since they are the least wasteful and simplest presence of perfection in reality. However, this is not to say that qualities are most perfect, for the qualities themselves have an object without which no consciousness could perceive them.
In some sense, the object is a thought. Yet simply by being a thought this does not make it a conscious thought. The activity of thinking gives life to a thought as though the thought had been a fixed sign brought to life.
Often the fixed shape of a thought takes form prior to its consciousness in a thinking process. However, the process of "signing" may be adopted ona conscious level as a means of informing the direction of the cognitive process, specifically in corroborating diverse notions towards a new realization built upon the intentions and principles of previous insights. In other words, a similar system approaches one symbol and the next.
Thus in the context of this network of signs, each being itself a thought, thinking takes place through one of two actions:
1. A transformation is made between two previously existing signs or
2. Through a comparison of two or more previous signs, a new sign is formed.(~2)
In the sense that I understand them, the first type of thinking is constructive and is a less conscious form of sign building. The second kind is the mark of special intelligence and even genius.
Footnotes
1. This has implications, for example in the choice to build houses independent of one another. Designing a perfect conglomerate is far more valuable than divided simplicity because of the nature of hierarchies. It may also ultimately be more efficient, e.g. if there is only one plan there is less conflict. Nevertheless it may run against the grain of standardization, fair market economy, and minimal input from specialists.
2. For simplicity's sake we may do well to consider that a new sign is not a new graphical symbol, but rather a new understanding that comes through the association of two different symbols (either of which may in itself exist as an abstract understanding rather than a visually or tactically percieved object).
GOOOD GUIDE ME VSVSVI should stretch, and avoid adventure. Known as Philosopher, Artist, Inventor, Poet. I live in New Haven near Yale University though I have never been an official student. Known mainly as a writer at Quora.com and as an Amazon author.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Semiotics 1
To say that a signifier is arbitrary implies that its context is arbitrary. Yet if the context is arbitrary it is difficult to see how it could have a consistent meaning to an individual, particularly if the individual has an awareness of the context, as presumably is intended by “Saussure’s dismantling of signs” (Wikipedia, “Semiotics”). If there is no consistent meaning of the sign, it is difficult to see how it might be considered a sign at all, since to define any given sign presupposes such a context.
The idea that signs are arbitrary amounts to the assumption that meaning is arbitrary. The way I see it, this is a naïve reflection of the unfounded conviction that the relationships between signs is not hierarchical within a given system of interpretation. To assume that the relationships are not hierarchical really only means that the system adopted in interpreting signs is flimsy and lacks rigor.
Considering the role signs play in the human landscape, it is reproachable to assume that the relationships between signs are arbitrary, if they figure so strongly in determining meaning for individuals. It is like saying that signs are arbitrary because people don’t care about them, or don’t think. Yet if signs are visually consistent for large populations, it is because they have value whether or not people think much of them. To me this indicates that they have been well considered by those to whom they have meaning.
Charles S. Pierce—system encumbered by technical language. It seems inadequate to approach meaning from an academic viewpoint, if it is ultimately the “reader” and “viewer” who experiences signs. Thus to define a signifier as a sign is in my view to move through notions of the signifier as reader. To categorize signs may not be adequate in categorizing the experience of signs.
For information on Pierce, see: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/dictionary.html
Approaching the notion of formal significance is necessarily to approach the notion of formal experience. In this sense it is less important to “cogitate” the datum of signs, than to culture an awareness of the aesthetic of signs, especially as a system evokative of qualities running a spectrum from the merely provokative to the metaphysical and genuine (the evokative and metaphysical being two extremes which complement one another insofar as either is realized).
It is more meaningful to build a “black book” of meanings than to decipher meanings that have already been made. Sometimes analysis of signs is a step away from using them; by becoming conscious of associations it may be possible to develop a stronger system of associations, but more often than not a system is a simplification. Understanding signs is necessarily to use them. To know is to be, for every why there is a better how, the artist is one who paints.
It is my view that as with music, the greatest theory follows the greatest realization of form. Ideally, the theorist created the form. Thus exploring the theory is inhabiting every corner; to know language is to be a poet, to know graphics is to be an artist, to know systems is to be a philosopher. To not fear the exploration is to uncover nothing new.
The writer looks at the page, and blanches, and becomes the page. The artist’s inspiration takes the trundling, headlong form of life impinging on the unknown. The philosopher finds a system like an abandoned house he retrofits to his own taste. Every exploration is uncertain, yet the result is a new landscape, pushing towards new imprecations and hesitations. What is a special installation to one may become someone else’s new retrofitted house.
Yet I am not a subjectivist. The meaning for any given things comes about through reference to the universal. If there is a failure in specific situations or formulations, it is for lack of embodiment of a greater truth; i.e. the absolute and correlatory, that without which there is no being or relationship.
Concerning x-partate sign relations:
Considering the idea of the sign, the object the sign represents, and the interpreter of the sign it seems to me that a metaphorical and iterative approach would more adequately phrase the interpretive method. To recognize a sign involves a kind of “identifying”, a relation between self and other through the association of identity with identity. While the symbol, and by extension the object it may represent has a fixed identity conceived as an unchanging category, the interpreter has a mutable identity defined in the context of fixed symbols. Thus to identify with one symbol at a given time is metaphorically to take on that identity, to change form. Through the significance of that identity, one defines what one can become, a path of signification. This necessarily leads towards a transformation into another sign, which lends its own properties as alternate crossroads towards still further meanings. Thus while the symbol represents certain potentials and relationships, the interpreter of the symbol has a dynamic role in determining, or disambiguating, the path that is of greatest significance (or most pragmatic or utilitarian etc., if the pragmatic or utilitarian is seen as the highest significance).
What I see in this sense of a tri-partite relation is the many levels which spiral away from the initial concept of the signified and interpreter. For every new transformation from one symbol to the next, the identity of the interpreter has a “meta value” that is incremented to a new concept of self. Likewise, the most significant signifier is incremented to a new “meta value” which may reflect prior tranformations. Finally, whether the interpreter’s sense of meaning is changeable or fixed depends on whether the meta value has reached a stage where it has changed, and if so if it has reached a stage where it returns. Thus there is a kind of “Unity” value which increments based upon the breadth of the interpreter’s associative world. To have an infinite Unity value would be like being omniscient.
A new term:
“relative equilibrium”: the way a definition within one system is analogous to another definition within another equivalent system. The pragmatic value of a system may be conceived as proportional to the extent of its relative equilibrium. Essentially, the value of the system is to provide signs which are universally applicable within the known limits of the broader notion of system. A metaphysical system is one in which signs are extended beyond the known concept of system (signs conceived broadly may include categorical maxims, which possess an identity equivalent to symbolism within their context).
The preceding is copyright (c) 2007 Eucaleh Terrapin
The idea that signs are arbitrary amounts to the assumption that meaning is arbitrary. The way I see it, this is a naïve reflection of the unfounded conviction that the relationships between signs is not hierarchical within a given system of interpretation. To assume that the relationships are not hierarchical really only means that the system adopted in interpreting signs is flimsy and lacks rigor.
Considering the role signs play in the human landscape, it is reproachable to assume that the relationships between signs are arbitrary, if they figure so strongly in determining meaning for individuals. It is like saying that signs are arbitrary because people don’t care about them, or don’t think. Yet if signs are visually consistent for large populations, it is because they have value whether or not people think much of them. To me this indicates that they have been well considered by those to whom they have meaning.
Charles S. Pierce—system encumbered by technical language. It seems inadequate to approach meaning from an academic viewpoint, if it is ultimately the “reader” and “viewer” who experiences signs. Thus to define a signifier as a sign is in my view to move through notions of the signifier as reader. To categorize signs may not be adequate in categorizing the experience of signs.
For information on Pierce, see: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/dictionary.html
Approaching the notion of formal significance is necessarily to approach the notion of formal experience. In this sense it is less important to “cogitate” the datum of signs, than to culture an awareness of the aesthetic of signs, especially as a system evokative of qualities running a spectrum from the merely provokative to the metaphysical and genuine (the evokative and metaphysical being two extremes which complement one another insofar as either is realized).
It is more meaningful to build a “black book” of meanings than to decipher meanings that have already been made. Sometimes analysis of signs is a step away from using them; by becoming conscious of associations it may be possible to develop a stronger system of associations, but more often than not a system is a simplification. Understanding signs is necessarily to use them. To know is to be, for every why there is a better how, the artist is one who paints.
It is my view that as with music, the greatest theory follows the greatest realization of form. Ideally, the theorist created the form. Thus exploring the theory is inhabiting every corner; to know language is to be a poet, to know graphics is to be an artist, to know systems is to be a philosopher. To not fear the exploration is to uncover nothing new.
The writer looks at the page, and blanches, and becomes the page. The artist’s inspiration takes the trundling, headlong form of life impinging on the unknown. The philosopher finds a system like an abandoned house he retrofits to his own taste. Every exploration is uncertain, yet the result is a new landscape, pushing towards new imprecations and hesitations. What is a special installation to one may become someone else’s new retrofitted house.
Yet I am not a subjectivist. The meaning for any given things comes about through reference to the universal. If there is a failure in specific situations or formulations, it is for lack of embodiment of a greater truth; i.e. the absolute and correlatory, that without which there is no being or relationship.
Concerning x-partate sign relations:
Considering the idea of the sign, the object the sign represents, and the interpreter of the sign it seems to me that a metaphorical and iterative approach would more adequately phrase the interpretive method. To recognize a sign involves a kind of “identifying”, a relation between self and other through the association of identity with identity. While the symbol, and by extension the object it may represent has a fixed identity conceived as an unchanging category, the interpreter has a mutable identity defined in the context of fixed symbols. Thus to identify with one symbol at a given time is metaphorically to take on that identity, to change form. Through the significance of that identity, one defines what one can become, a path of signification. This necessarily leads towards a transformation into another sign, which lends its own properties as alternate crossroads towards still further meanings. Thus while the symbol represents certain potentials and relationships, the interpreter of the symbol has a dynamic role in determining, or disambiguating, the path that is of greatest significance (or most pragmatic or utilitarian etc., if the pragmatic or utilitarian is seen as the highest significance).
What I see in this sense of a tri-partite relation is the many levels which spiral away from the initial concept of the signified and interpreter. For every new transformation from one symbol to the next, the identity of the interpreter has a “meta value” that is incremented to a new concept of self. Likewise, the most significant signifier is incremented to a new “meta value” which may reflect prior tranformations. Finally, whether the interpreter’s sense of meaning is changeable or fixed depends on whether the meta value has reached a stage where it has changed, and if so if it has reached a stage where it returns. Thus there is a kind of “Unity” value which increments based upon the breadth of the interpreter’s associative world. To have an infinite Unity value would be like being omniscient.
A new term:
“relative equilibrium”: the way a definition within one system is analogous to another definition within another equivalent system. The pragmatic value of a system may be conceived as proportional to the extent of its relative equilibrium. Essentially, the value of the system is to provide signs which are universally applicable within the known limits of the broader notion of system. A metaphysical system is one in which signs are extended beyond the known concept of system (signs conceived broadly may include categorical maxims, which possess an identity equivalent to symbolism within their context).
The preceding is copyright (c) 2007 Eucaleh Terrapin
GOOOD GUIDE ME VSVSVI should stretch, and avoid adventure. Known as Philosopher, Artist, Inventor, Poet. I live in New Haven near Yale University though I have never been an official student. Known mainly as a writer at Quora.com and as an Amazon author.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)