A
Anonymous
Guest
Hello,
I have great trouble understanding the following underlined parts.
Could anyone kindly give me a hand? Thank you so much.
As a matter of fact, in the first part of A Theory of Semiotics I
began with a problem: If, in Peircean sense, there is such a thing as Dynamical Object, we know it only through an Immediate Object. By manipulating signs, we refer to the Dynamical Object as a terminus ad quem of semiosis. In the second part of the book, devoted to the ways in which signs are produced, I presupposed that if we speak it is because Something urges us to speak. And this ushered in the problem of the Dynamical Object as a terminus a quo.
The decision to state the problem of the Dynamical Object first in terms of its being a terminus ad quemwas to determine my success interests, following the development of semiosis as a sequence of interpretants - interpretants being a collect, public, observable product laid down in the course of cultural processes, even though one does not presume the existence of a mind that admits of, uses, or develops them. This led to what I have written on the problem of signification, the text and intertextuality, narrativity and the elaboration and limits of interpretation. [/u]
I have great trouble understanding the following underlined parts.
Could anyone kindly give me a hand? Thank you so much. As a matter of fact, in the first part of A Theory of Semiotics I
began with a problem: If, in Peircean sense, there is such a thing as Dynamical Object, we know it only through an Immediate Object. By manipulating signs, we refer to the Dynamical Object as a terminus ad quem of semiosis. In the second part of the book, devoted to the ways in which signs are produced, I presupposed that if we speak it is because Something urges us to speak. And this ushered in the problem of the Dynamical Object as a terminus a quo.
The decision to state the problem of the Dynamical Object first in terms of its being a terminus ad quemwas to determine my success interests, following the development of semiosis as a sequence of interpretants - interpretants being a collect, public, observable product laid down in the course of cultural processes, even though one does not presume the existence of a mind that admits of, uses, or develops them. This led to what I have written on the problem of signification, the text and intertextuality, narrativity and the elaboration and limits of interpretation. [/u]