Various from Eco's A Theory of Semiotics

[noemata]

17/02/2004 06:05:23, Alan Sondheim <sondheim at PANIX.COM> wrote:

>Various from Eco's A Theory of Semiotics
>
>
>..a sign is always an element of an _expression plane_ conventionally
>correlated to one (or several) elements of a _content plane._

Maybe like the general two-fold of a process - _program_ and _data_ in 
informatics/cybernetic, within 'convention' - a conventional process.

>Properly speaking there are not signs, but only _sign-functions._

>From Hofstader (Gödel, Escher, Bach p547) - "although we can try to ddrav a 
clear line between program and data, the distinction is somewhat arbitrary. 
Carrying this line og thought further, we find that not only are program and 
data intricately woven together, but also the interpreter of programs, the 
physical processor, and even the language are included this intimate fusion. 
Therefore... it is just as important and fascinating to recognize the level-
crossings and mixings."

>..the classical notion of 'sign' dissolves itself into a highly complex
>network of changing relationships.

Because what is program and what is data in a process - sign - is dependent on 
the convention  - program is also data - and because there's self-rep, self-
ref, recursion - the program feeding/eating itself - signs with blurred, 
paradoxical content plane, etc.

>..under the name of /'code/ the engineer is considering at least four
>different phenomena:
>
>(a) A set of _signals_ ruled by internal combinatory laws. 
>
>(b) A set of states [of X] which are taken into account as a set of _notions_
>.. about the state of [X] and which can become .. a set of possible
>communicative contents.
>
>(c) A state of possible _behavioral responses_ on the part of the
>destination.
>
>(d) A _rule_ coupling some items from the (a) system with some of the (b)
>or (c) system. This rule establishes that a given array of syntactic
>signals refers back to a given state of [X], or to a given 'pertinent'
>segmentation of the semantic system; that both the syntactic and the
>semantic units, once coupled, may correspond to a given response; or that
>a given array of signals corresponds to a given response even though no
>semantic unit is supposed to be signalled; and so on.
>
>Only this complex form of rule may properly be called a _'code.'_

(d)... a mapping between syntactic and semantic units corresponding to 
state/response - a three-fold.

A sign is two-fold and a code-sign is three-fold? Is the code-sign a sign 
where the 'conventional' is expanded into code? The complex rule (d) - the 
code - as the 'convention' of the sign.

In case - replacing 'sign' with 'code-sign' - a code-sign is always an element 
of an _expression plane_ CODIFIED to one (or several) elements of a 
_content plane._

>..the classical notion of 'sign' dissolves itself into a highly complex
>network of changing relationships.

How much more then with code-sign, with the extra level of code 
interpretation.

Short: Sign is convention, code-sign is interpretation.
- Signs have automatic interpretations.
- Code-signs have problematic conventions.
- Code-signs are unconventional, interpreted signs.

Btw, from Hofstader, on code - "a coded message, unlike an uncoded message, 
does not express anything on its own - it requires knowledge of the code. But 
in reality there is no such thing as an uncoded message. There are only 
messages written in more familiar codes, and in less familiar."
- which would fit the Eco, the sign having familiar correlation, and the code-
sign an interpreting correlation.

Like Eco's 'signs' are two-fold, his(?) 'code' could also be viewed at two-
fold but where the two-fold is multi-leveled, adding an extra level of 
interpretation: the interpretation going on in coding could be viewed as sets 
of 'signs' being 'conventionally correlated' (just like signs themselves).
And isn't 'conventionally correlated' just the 'sign' again? On and on.

Just some comments..

B..