|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, March 12 2013 @ 08:29 PM EDT |
This is adding nothing over the painting of a pipe which is used to explain
these concepts. This example is already in the proposed text.
In your explanation, you have the sign-vehicle and the interpretant. Although
you don't use the words you mention the concepts. You just don't give them
names.
Also your story is incomplete. It lacks the referent. This part is important. If
we use software in an industrial process for curing rubber, is the process
patentable? Usually we say that curing rubber is patentable, even when it is
controlled by a computer. Suppose a patent claims just the software without
curing the rubber, why wouldn't that be patentable as well? The difference is
that the actual rubber is not a thought in the human mind, so it matters whether
it or not it is actually cured. Then we have brought up the concept of
referent.
We end up with two sorts of meanings, the interpretant and the referent. The
interpretant is abstract because it is a thought. The referent is concrete
because it is the actual thing. This is not difficult to understand.
If we use the word "meaning" for both types, how people can tell which
one we mean? Are we going to clarify that in every sentence? Do you see why this
is a problem?
Using semiotics gives us the vocabulary we need. Avoiding semiotics doesn't
simplify things. It makes them more complex because we have to use the concepts
without having names for them. Putting semiotics in a footnote doesn't help
because the words have to be used.
There is only one reason to avoid semiotics, and it is that some people are
spooked by words they are not familiar with. Instead of learning new words they
think "oh my god this is complicated, I can't read what this guy say
because I don't know the words." This is not a reason to do without a
vocabulary.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
