[FRIAM] semiotics, again?

[gepr ⛧]

Excellent ideas! Thanks.

On June 5, 2017 8:01:43 PM PDT, Carl Tollander <carl at plektyx.com> wrote:
>Seems like Kanji would qualify as such an exploration.   See
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanji particularly where they talk about
>different "readings".   (also see
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_characters for a broader
>situating
>explanation)  Somewhat sideways, one could look also at the Kana (signs
>in
>the domain of phonemes) and how they are pronounced slightly
>differently in
>different combinations by different speakers.
>
>Calligraphy might also qualify.
>
>Carl
>
>
>On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:26 PM, glen ☣ <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> EricS' categorization of a cumulative hierarchy for reflective
>complexity
>> reminded me of this:
>>
>>   A Linguist Responds to Cormac McCarthy
>>  
>http://nautil.us/issue/48/chaos/a-linguist-responds-to-cormac-mccarthy
>>
>> particularly the difference between a "hard-coded" referent (e.g. a
>> hypothetical neuroanatomical structure tightly coupled to efficient
>> language acquisition and use) versus an ambiguous/multi-valent
>referent.
>> And that launched my typically vague meandering back to the semiotics
>> 3-tuple: <sign,object,interpretant>.  Freedom can occur in any of the
>> three.  A sign can refer to multiple objects, be interpreted by
>multiple
>> interpretants, multiple objects can be signified by the same sign,
>etc.
>> This leads directly to Sedivy's point about compositionality of signs
>and
>> works its way back to my beef with the idea that subsystems like the
>BZ
>> reaction (or any context-dependnt module) are complex systems.
>>
>> Unfortunately, I'm too ignorant of the fleshing of semiotics to know
>> whether these freedoms (in any/all of the triad) have been explored. 
>So,
>> please hand me some clues if you have them!

-- 
⛧glen⛧