When I bash my head against a brickwall, as I am often enough wont to do when
reading sysfling orsysfunc or even asflanet, it hurts. And I have known that
such thingshurt from a very young age, just as I know that when I jump up in
theair, which I rarely do nowadays, I quickly come back down.
And, as I said, I came to know suchthings at a very early age, well before I
learnt about quantummechanics, or electromagnetic radiation, or even gravity.
It is asif, as a human being, or even as an animal, the 'real' realities ofthe
physical world were not prior to my understandings of the way theworld worked.
May I suggest, as frustratedly politelyas I can, that H and M have got it back
to front, or inside out, orthey have put the cart before the horse, one of
those sorts of things, and it would be nice to know which.
As an animal, and like most animals, Idon't know what electromagnetic radiation
is, and electromagneticradiation, or any other profound scientific fact, has no
part to playin my interaction with the world, as an animal. (James Gibson
wasvery strong on this point, simple, comprehensible, and early on in
hisecological approach, around pages 8 and 9 and such.)
The physical realities of the world,such as electromagnetic radiation and
molecular bondings, do notmatter, what matters, is my child-like and continuing
reality, thatwhen I bang my head against the wall, even metaphorically, it
hurts,and that hurting leads me to organise my world and to developtheories of
the world. The wall teaches, even if I don't learn.
It may be true that electomagneticradiation exists, and perhaps even that there
is some strangerelationship between sinusoidal wavings and photons, but to the
childmes and yous, and even the current me, it is pretty much irrelevantto
thinking about the development of semiosis. The currentscientific reality,
perhaps very obviously, is not the start of ourthinking about semiosis and our
interaction with the world, it is theend.
It is appealing to imagine that westart with some real world, and then develop
from that real worldto... what...?
it may behelpful to locate this concept within the context of the history
ofideas, albeit in a very sketchy fashion. As we conceive of it, theterm
"semiotic" is framed within a linear taxonomy of"physical — biological — social
— semiotic"; and theterm "system" is a shortened form of "system-&-process"…
I could say that this line of thoughtis an elaboration of folkish assumptions,
but that would probably notelucidate the problems of the H and M quotation,
which, quitepossibly, are not elucidatable, since, a core problem is that I
(one)can't work out what they are talking about. 'the history of ideas'
isthrown into the mix, as the framing/context of a linear taxonomy,
"physical— biological — social — semiotic"
but why would you think that thisparticular progression (linear?) is a
progression within the historyof ideas? Even in a sketchy fashion, the history
of ideas didn'tproceed in that fashion, not even remotely. We might imagine
that inthe history of the world that there is some such progression, wherethe
biological developed after the 'physical' and the 'social' afterthe biological,
but it is hard to see how there might be a socialwithout a semiotic. In any
case, as 'semioticians', except perhaps asbiosemioticians, why would we be
concerned with life developing fromthe physical? from some sort of chemical
reaction perhaps?
And/but/so... what is a 'lineartaxonomy'? Isn't that an oxymoron? And doesn't
it remain an oxymoronwhen you throw 'system and process' into the mix, that is,
into theblender. System and process have to do with realizations, and as
suchare system internal. We may talk in terms of system and process, asif they
are two separable things, but a system without realizationsfrom the options in
the system, is what? Not worth much, that is to say, not worth anything. But
that isprobably not the point to make here. Mmm? ! Perhaps I should point
outthat when we say that
We aretreating language as a semiotic system
we are divorcing the semiosis from thereal, both the social and the real real
(okay, the real is probablylargely semiotic to the young me who has learnt –
semioted – thecharacter of brick walls) and divorced from social and the
real,language is pretty much pointless isn't it?
A biologicalsystem is a physical system with the added component of "life";it
is a living physical system. In comparable terms, a social systemis a
biological system with the added component of "value"(which explains the need
for a synoptic approach, since value issomething that is manifested in forms of
structure). A semioticsystem, then, is a social system with the added component
of"meaning".
Break this down into segments, andquestions start begging, pleading, entreating.
A biologicalsystem is a physical system with the added component of "life";
itis a living physical system.
Incomparable terms,
social system is a biological systemwith the added component of "value"
(whichexplains the need for a synoptic approach,
sincevalue is something that is manifested in forms of structure).
Asemiotic system, then, is a social system with the added component
of"meaning".
It's a muss.
Starting, and quickly finishing, towardsthe end of this quotation, what would a
social system be withoutmeaning? And related to that, what would meaning be
without value?
So, stop! Someone needs to think thesethings through a little more carefully.
On Monday, 30 May 2022, 00:01:03 BST, Dr ChRIS CLÉiRIGh
<c.cleirigh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
The following might be useful for those who are interested in the bigger
picture.
Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 507-9):
We are treating language as a semiotic system, and it may be helpful to locate
this concept within the context of the history of ideas, albeit in a very
sketchy fashion. As we conceive of it, the term "semiotic" is framed within a
linear taxonomy of "physical — biological — social — semiotic"; and the term
"system" is a shortened form of "system-&-process" …
Physical systems are just physical systems. Biological systems, however, are
not just biological systems; they are at once both biological and physical.
Social systems are all three: social, biological and physical. This makes them
increasingly difficult for us to comprehend. This is not the same as saying
that social systems are more complex than biological ones, or biological than
physical; there are too many different ways in which things can be complex, for
any such observation to make much sense. But they are increasingly complex in
this particular respect; and this means that it is increasingly difficult to
recognise the essential nature of the phenomena concerned. …
A biological system is a physical system with the added component of "life"; it
is a living physical system. In comparable terms, a social system is a
biological system with the added component of "value" (which explains the need
for a synoptic approach, since value is something that is manifested in forms
of structure). A semiotic system, then, is a social system with the added
component of "meaning".
--
dr chris cléirigh
Education is simply the soul of a society as it passes from one generation to
another.
— Gilbert K. Chesterton
====================================
My Linguistics SitesThoughts That Cross My MindSysflingDeploying Functional
GrammarMartin's Model Of Paralanguage
Informing ThoughtsMaking Sense Of MeaningSystemic Functional Linguistics
Sys-FuncThe Thought Occurs…Martin's Discourse Semantics, Register &
GenreThoughts That Didn't Occur…
Working With Discourse: Meaning Beyond The ClauseThe Cardiff GrammarLexis As
Most Local ContextFactoring Out StructureAttitude In Systemic Functional
Linguistics====================================
