[Index] [Prev] [Next]

Comments to Semios-L

Steven Skaggs :
Re: TUT: Specificity;
Wed, 26 Jun 1996 20:55:41 -0400

>I wish Steve would post the complete article he wrote with Gary Shank.

I'll try to do that, although it makes heavy use of diagrams which may
present a problem. I'll be away from email for a few days so maybe Gary
Shank can respond before I return. Then again, maybe not :)

We made no attempt in the article to translate Saussure into Peirce or vice
versa. In fact we mentioned that the two systems seem to stand
independently as tools. Each have a role to play.

What we have been doing, first in the Specificity piece for Zed4 and this
summer on a new piece, is to simply put down the S or P frames of reference
and look at things from a different angle. The only insight into the
current discussion is that looked at from the standpoint of specificity, S
and P terminology both stand up.

Specificity is deconstruction upended. I mean that whereas deconstruction
makes the point (and remakes the point and remakes the point ad infinitum)
that there is no 'transcendental signified', we are saying "of course there
isn't" but let's look at how some messages seem to point toward a center
while others spin away.

Steve
_____________
Steven Skaggs

anyone, practical, software, faulty, defects
(five randomly chosen words from a computer manual)

pardon, brought, rum, falling, fruit
(five randomly chosen words from the Bible)

[Index] [Prev] [Next]

Comments to Semios-L