tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619971495701363752.post4093399288406345012..comments2007-12-21T12:52:25.025-05:00Comments on visual communication + culture: A-signifying semiotic machinesgchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13002351685390500579noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619971495701363752.post-75641374653282363132007-10-12T18:07:00.000-04:002007-10-12T18:07:00.000-04:00Guattari is speaking, I think, of signs that signi...Guattari is speaking, I think, of signs that signify but not according to the structuralist rules of language-as-system. And that seems to me to be the connection between Guattari and Peirce. Peirce asks what are the conditions which enable signification, and how philosophically can we account for (and categorize) the different sorts of actual/possible sign relations? This is different than presuming language is the ideal system of signification, believing that there is really only one kind of sign-relation possible, and presuming that every sort of signification operates according to that metaphor: x is structured like a language.<BR/><BR/>I think that Deleuze and Guattari would say language isn't even structured like a language in Sassure's sense, let alone images (Barthes), film (Metz), the unconscious (Lacan), or ideology (Althusser).<BR/><BR/>If you are interested, I can point you toward some more of their work on this subject...little bit of lite reading...? ^-^gchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13002351685390500579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619971495701363752.post-71805513176077594122007-10-12T18:06:00.000-04:002007-10-12T18:06:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.gchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13002351685390500579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619971495701363752.post-148416263012828362007-10-10T09:18:00.000-04:002007-10-10T09:18:00.000-04:00Certainly communication always involves a flow of ...Certainly communication always involves a flow of forces that are not necessarily representable. As illustrated by Guattari, we certainly must keep in mind the many dimensions that are simultaneously "working us over." Always all at once, our experience is colored by qualities that give our engagement life; in fact, these dimensions mentioned by Guattari cannot be divorced from actual living beings: sonorousness, emotional dimensions, and the physical event of producing speech requires for their existence a living being endowed with these capacities, and with the strength to employ them. <BR/><BR/>I’m still trying to work this out: <BR/> In offering account of an asignifying semiotics, is Guattari speaking of signs that don’t signify, or of things that are not signs at all? For instance, are the musical qualities of speech - or the colors of an image - signs that don’t signify, or no signs at all? <BR/>May these dimensions that have been identified by Guattari be related to Peirce’s notions of “Firstness”? May Peirce’s “qualisign” be integrated here in this discourse?bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00627275686115463176noreply@blogger.com