From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!yorku.ca!rreiner Tue Nov 19 11:10:23 EST 1991
Article 1346 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!yorku.ca!rreiner
>From: rreiner@nexus.yorku.ca (Richard Reiner)
Subject: Re: Is semiotics an "informal logic"?
Message-ID: <rreiner.690332884@yorku.ca>
Sender: news@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca (USENET News System)
Organization: York University
References: <1991Nov11.024611.12312@nuscc.nus.sg>  <LmVaBB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> <1991Nov14.065924.29076@nuscc.nus.sg> <91319.204047MORIARTY@NDSUVM1.BITNET>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 23:08:04 GMT

<MORIARTY@NDSUVM1.BITNET> writes:

>Saussure postulates the existence of a bar between the signifier
>and the signified.  Lacan postulates that the signified is constantly
>shifting.

It may very well be true that various symbols change their meaning
from time to time; but this is no excuse for vagueness in the
analytical work in which we try to understand this.  As far as I can
tell, neither Saussure nor (especially) Lacan are ever very clear.
Lacan does not appear even to *want* to be.  If you can explain their
claims in relatively clear terms, I'm sure many of us would be pleased
(and possibly surprised).

>Eco holds that the "syncategorematic" (demonstrative?)
>signifier is constantly shifting.

This is particularly puzzling.  To my knowledge, "syncategorematic"
describes a kind of definition: we say that a term is introduced
syncategorematically if only expressions involving it are assigned
meanings, not the term itself.  An informal example would be if,
instead of telling you the meaning of '+' (the addition symbol)
directly, I only told you how to interpret things of the form 'm + n'.
Now, what on earth has this to do the the topic at hand?



