Re: The word "symbol"
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:22:43 GMT
Message-ID: <7KkLe.4899$RZ2.4160_at_newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>
"vc" <boston103_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123860997.329786.39380_at_f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Probably the ancients used it because they did not know any better :)
Or perhaps we ancients used it precisely because we did know better.
> >
> > However, the entire chapter 1 of the book is devoted to the relationship
> > between symbols and meaning. I keep seeing the word "semiotics" used in
> > here, and that word is novel to me. It's not clear to me just what
> > semiotics is, but I suspect that the relationship between symbols and
> > meaning is pretty close to it.
>
> Semiotics has quite a few non-intersecting branches depending on the
> semiotician you talk to ;). Some claim it studies the interaction
> between the "signifier" (name) and the "signified" (entity) and that
> the "signified" can be influenced by the "signifier". Others say that
> "signs" (or "symbols" where "symbol" is a synonym of "sign") as
> "signifiers" have meanings of their own unrelated, or weakly related,
> to that of the "signified". One of the more interesting semioticians
> is the writer Umberto Eco who used some semiotics ideas in his books
> (e.g., Foucault's Pendulum). However, I do not see how this stuff
> can be applicable to study of formal systems, like the RM.
>
> >
> > I can't to justice to Chapter 1 of the book in here.
> >
> >
> >
> > > I honestly do not understand :
> > > a. what is meant by "symbols can be used to express data"
> > > b. how "symbols are more accessible to analysis than ideas"
> > > c. what is meant by "two physical thimgs are the same symbol"
> >
> >
> > Let me give you my take on the above, rather than the book's.
> >
> > a. If symbols are NOT used to express data, then what IS used?
>
> As I said, quite a few times before, *names* (constants, variables,
> etc.) are used for this purpose.
So the word "names" has replaced the word "symbol" in the literature that you read. Big deal.
>
> > b. I think the authors' point was that tangible things are more
accessible
> > to analysis than ideas.
>
> OK, sort of trivial if true.
It's the introduction, remember. There's quite a bit more to the book. I won't comment on whether the entire book is trivial or not. I will say that it hasn't been so gripping for me that I couldn't put it down. Received on Sat Aug 13 2005 - 13:22:43 CEST