From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!nuscc!hilbert!smoliar Tue Nov 19 11:09:46 EST 1991
Article 1281 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!nuscc!hilbert!smoliar
>From: smoliar@hilbert.iss.nus.sg (stephen smoliar)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Is semiotics an "informal logic"?
Summary: Is semiotics post-modern fiction?
Message-ID: <1991Nov12.115624.14166@nuscc.nus.sg>
Date: 12 Nov 91 11:56:24 GMT
References: <Veo4aB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> <rreiner.689651023@yorku.ca> <91313.225035MORIARTY@NDSUVM1.BITNET>
Sender: usenet@nuscc.nus.sg
Organization: Institute of Systems Science, NUS, Singapore
Lines: 38

In article <91313.225035MORIARTY@NDSUVM1.BITNET> MORIARTY@NDSUVM1.BITNET
writes:
>
>Concerning Eco's reliability as a scientist, there is no doubt in my
>mind that he was writing fiction.  This is a serious breakthrough in
>fiction, to my way of thinking.  Fiction, according to Aristotle,
>is a mimesis of reality.  In "Theory of Semiotics," Eco gives us a
>pseudo-scientific paradigm that simultaneously mimes reality and
>enters the sphere of science merely because scientists do not always
>recognize the literary use of the scientific paradigm.  In postmodern
>critical terms, we may speak of it as pastiche, parody, multilayered
>textuality, or perhaps best, as a Minnipean satire.
>
>To mistake fictional discourse for authoritarian discourse is
>unfortunate, but readily understandable.  It demonstrates the power
>of Eco's literary style that "Theory of Semiotics" is read as a poor
>example of science rather than as a poweful work of fiction.  For
>internal evidence to support my interpretation, refer to his Latin
>dictamens cited in the work.  You will find that they are nearly all
>insulting to the reader, if understood.  I take this to be a non-
>scientific fissure in the work which signals its fictive dimension.
>
This is a pretty weak justification.  There is nothing non-scientific about
cooking up an extremely arcane joke which may be appreciated only by the
author.  (There is a perfectly good category theory textbook which happens
to have "kitty-gory" as an index entry . . . pointing to the definition of
"small category."  Such harmless games hardly invalidate scientific
presentation.)

Perhaps now we should entertain the hypothesis that all of semiotics is nothing
more than post-modern fiction.  (Who care is Pierce and Morris had nothing to
do with literary movements?)  That might be a good justification for its
popularity in France, might it not?
-- 
Stephen W. Smoliar; Institute of Systems Science
National University of Singapore; Heng Mui Keng Terrace
Kent Ridge, SINGAPORE 0511
Internet:  smoliar@iss.nus.sg


