No amount of technicality can suffice to conjoin them. We must therefore abandon the scientific pretensions of semiology.
These technicalities nevertheless create an illusion of objectivity. They give him a justification for avoiding the question of how meaning is objectively determined in language since their application makes contact with no semantic inquiry ; at the same time, semiology lays claim to a special objectivity of its own. But the problem for the semiologist is no different from the problem for Dante: what makes an interpretation legitimate?
But that can provide no criterion of legitimate interpretation. Arithmetic can be derived from logic in various ways. Frege, Russell and Zermelo each attempted such a derivation, and their proofs have a common intellectual structure. For Frege arithmetic is the objectification of the inner life; for Russell it is the expression of class consciousness; for Zermelo it is the description of a collectivity. The bourgeois individualist, the aristocrat and the egalitarian each reveals himself in the language that he chooses.
But we know that it is irrelevant to an understanding of the texts. How do we know that? A question like this bewilders the semiologist, since his technicalities can generate no solution to it.
- RELATED ARTICLES.
- Sir Roger Scruton and the New Left: His Excellent Insight and a Reader’s Thoughts?
- Complete Book of Remote Access: Connectivity and Security!
But perhaps there is more to be said. The principal exponent of semiotics is Umberto Eco, who holds the only existing chair in this possibly non-existing subject, and whose writings — which take their initial inspiration from the general classification of signs put forward by C. Peirce — have proved influential in Italy, France and America. It seems to express a greater plasticity of outlook, and, being able to regard Julia Kristeva and Saul Kripke as equally relevant to its intellectual enterprise, it draws attention from every corner of the academic world.
Let us, however, ignore the higher reaches of semiotic speculation, and attend for a moment to that mundane application through which it first proved influential: the application to architecture. We find the old semiological fallacies enduring uninterrupted. Like most practitioners of semiotics and in architectural theory they are increasingly many , Preziosi begins by assuming what he ought to be proving: namely, that architecture is sufficiently like language for the methods of analysis appropriate to the one to be usefully transferred to the other.
What is a sign?
And perhaps that is no bad thing: for do we not speak of the meaning of architectural forms? Do we not regard buildings as in some sense speaking to us, even, as it were, observing us, with something on the tip of their our tongue? But how should it proceed? This suggestion is already highly implausible.
No progress can now be made without the assumption that meaning is determined by convention. If it is not, then the reference to vocabulary, and later to syntax, is spurious.
Now it is fairly clear to anyone who has thought about these matters that, while what is sometimes called meaning in architecture but which might equally be called aesthetic character is influenced by convention, it is not merely the result of convention. In other words, we have failed to advance from syntax to semantics.
We have syntax without semantics, and therefore neither. Imitating the Barthes of Mythologies but with rather less wit , Eco explores the narrative devices of Ian Fleming and the emotional significance of the Superman comics.
Roger Scruton Reader - PDF Free Download
It is rather difficult to understand the distinction between the open and the closed text. It is clearly meant to provide some substitute for the ideologically unacceptable? Ian Fleming is a writer of closed texts, James Joyce a writer of open texts. We have here an important critical distinction, corresponding to the more familiar distinction between mechanical contrivance and creative art. Unfortunately, semiosis soon sets in, and the distinction rots away. None of these technicalities is either explained or seriously exploited.
What had begun by seeming to be a genuine theory ends as a concatenation of independent distinctions, none of them adequately characterised. This story is a joke, directed against the reader, who is encouraged to fill in its lacunae. A story like this is, of course, a gift to the semiotician. Professor Eco uses it to introduce the latest and most fashionable developments in modal logic — in particular, the theory of possible worlds.
The result scarcely makes sense, and it appears to me that the author may well be aware of this. The semantics of modal logic arose in the following way.
And modern logic has developed almost entirely on the assumption of extensionality: without that assumption logic seems hardly to proceed. How then can ordinary logic either represent or elucidate sentences about the necessary and the possible? It is clear that these sentences have a logic.
Professor Roger Scruton
This theory is capable of systematic development. It might seem natural to suggest that a work of fiction is nothing but the partial description of a possible world. Perhaps, then, the theory of possible worlds can be used to elucidate our understanding of fiction, and thereby show us how jokers like Allais can tie us in impossible knots. Unfortunately, there are two serious drawbacks. The first is that Eco does not seem to understand the theory from which he persistently borrows. Even his grasp of extensional logic is tenuous, as is shown by the fact that when he chooses to express himself in logical notation rather than in English, the result is usually ill-formed examples on pages and , When he comes to write of model theory itself, the result is strictly unintelligible.
Secondly, it is doubtful whether model theory can do anything to elucidate our understanding of fiction. The difficulty here was pointed out over two millennia ago. In the Poetics Aristotle drew attention to the fact that impossibilities are frequent in fiction. Consider the many difficulties that surround the idea of incarnation, so brilliantly dramatised by Wagner in the Ring.
From — he was editor of the Salisbury Review. He was founder and director of Claridge Press from —, when it became part of the Continuum Publishing Group. He has also presented two full television documentaries. He has composed two operas, Violet premiered in and The Minister premiered in Previously, he has also been requested to speak on topics concerning musical education and the significance of culture. To inquire into the availability of Roger Scruton for your upcoming event, email mail ttf.wilkinsonstaronline.com/103.php
Roger Scruton Reader
Selected Publications. Save Save. Remember me Lost your password?