[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: VMs: semiotics & vms: homepage
To Nick, Rene and all the people who chatted with me the previous days:
could you please check it out? I'd like to know on one hand if I'm clear and
on the other hand if you agree...
While in many ways I applaud semiotics as a discipline, it does seem to me
that the VMs is in many ways a worst-case scenario for it, pointing right
to the heart of what the semiotics "research programme" (in Lakatos' sense)
is all about (ie, meaning) and how its various approaches & frameworks can
fail to satisfy when (as in the VMs' case) meaning is inaccessible -
semiotics seems essentially predicated on *access to meaning*.
Further, the central conceit of semiotics would appear to be that
semioticians somehow believe they have a "VIP backstage pass" to the
preferred meaning of a text, by studying its form, its content, its
provenance, or even its surrounding culture (as you're doing here).
However, what we're engaged in (as a community) is already effectively a
(largely frustrated) semiotic endeavour - we're trying (art history-style)
to decode the signs, shapes, provenance, stories, etc, whilst
simultaneously trying to reconstruct (science-style) its technology,
materials, production, encoding, etc, all to try to pin down the "meaning
in the middle". If that isn't semiotics, I don't know what is. :-)
You might also be careful about where you place your epistemology of
hypotheses - for the most part, proposing theories is often merely our way
of trying to provoke responses from our subject matter - so, rather than
seeing (the accumulation of) theories solely as being the *ends* of our
study [ie, as a target to aim for] (which Gibbons et al.  classify as
"Mode 1" knowledge), theories here are just as much our *means* to those
ends [ie, as a tool] ("Mode 2" knowledge).
All in all, this would appear to mean you're engaged in a semiotic analysis
of the means of a semiotic endeavour, which could end up slightly circular
/ self-referential if you're not careful. :-o
One final thought: I believe that practitioners have a responsibility both
to build and to destroy their own disciplines, though the Peter Principle
usually prevails over the latter (ie, it's not in the Royal Tailor's
self-interest to describe the Emperor's lack of attire). But here you have
an artefact that (I believe) actively critiques and pushes the limits of
semiotics (and semiotic frameworks) right to the edge - which is perhaps
just as interesting (to a semiotics theorist) as the VMs itself.
That is, rather than simply ask what semiotics tells us about the VMs, one
might instead ask - what does the VMs tell us about semiotics? :-o
Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: