|
|
Posted by Ben C on 02/20/07 22:59
On 2007-02-20, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article
><1171973546.077490.239830@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Andy Dingley" <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote:
>
>> On 20 Feb, 01:50, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
[...]
>> > "only the signified conveys real meaning"? What?
>>
>> Yes. That's what we define it to mean. We invent these new term-usages
>> and we define them as "expression of" and "thing expressed". Thus far
>> I don't see much scope for bollockspeakery. Signifiers don't have
>> meaning, they just point to the thing that does carry the meaning.
>
> This is just false. They point to no such thing. There is no such
> thing. It is an illusion you are chasing, a ghost. There is no
> "thing" that carries the meaning in most cases. The closest you
> will ever get to a thing being "meant" is a proper name and the
> thing named. And even then, the name does not mean the object.
> But at this point, I better stop, no?
If you want, but you make the case well.
Continental philosophobabble or not though, the authoring tool idea does
sound interesting.
I'm not sure how it would work. It reminds me of Roget's Thesaurus.
Everyone just looks things up in the index when they want a long word,
but if you read the introduction, the book is supposed to be something
much more ambitious: the inverse of a dictionary. You start with the
meaning and look up the word, using a hierarchical classification
starting with "Abstract Relations", "Space", "Matter", "Volition", etc.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|