These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
Andy and Larry, I was just going to write a very similar note to Andy's. I believe that the Peircian distinctions are very widely accepted, Vera -----Original Message----- From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 9:23 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: Re: [xmca] Body expression as sign. Larry are you intending to use these terms as in Peirce's system? For Peirce "sign" is a global category including a wide array of relations between sign, interpretant and object. For Peirce a *symbol* has only a conventional relation to the object for the interpretant. It is an *icon* which relies on resemblance to the object, and an *index* on a material connection. But there are other theories of semiotics I guess. Andy http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/peirce2.htm* *Larry Purss wrote: > Joseph, Jack, Rod and Christine > > I would like to explore the topic of *body expression AS signs* [the topic > of the thread] > > The term *signs* and how it links to two other terms *gesture* and *symbols* > > This is not to put in question the focus of this thread to open up and > explore questions of *energy* *movement* *emotion* and *attunement*. The > overall general term *expression* and how expression is an *aesthetic > REACTION* [Vygotsky's term] or an *aesthetic RESPONSE* [Gadamer's term] > I seems to be central to our understanding bodily expression > > Within this general notion of expression my question is if the following > statements are equivalent, different, or ambivalent? > * Body expression AS gesture > * Body expression AS sign > * Body expression as symbol > > My understanding of the relation of *signs* to what they signify is that > the relation is ESSENTIALLY arbitrary. One sign can replace another sign > and either sign can equally represent the signified. > > Symbols, by contrast have a relation of RESEMBLANCE to the signified. We > cannot merely transfer one symbol to be replaced by another symbol > without this change radically changing the meaning. > > Both signs and symbols are implicated in conceptual understanding. > > Body expression as *gesture* moves into the realm of *showing* and > *perceiving* ACTUAL physical bodily movement. Some traditions assume this > level of bodily expression is pre-conceptual. However other traditions > asumme bodily gesture is expressing cultural-historical conventionalized > movements. > > My question is: When we are exploring aesthetic REACTION or aesthetic > RESPONSE to bodily *expression* [as a general term] are we *understanding* > this bodily expression at the level of gesture, symbol, or sign > expressions? Do the adjectives used to modify *expression* change the > meaning of our understanding of expression as a general term? > > Larry > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com>wrote: > > >> Let us remember that spoken-word language is composed of sounds made by >> the body, sounds that issue forth as expressions of emotions and that cause >> hearers bodies to assume patterns of motion analogous to those in the >> generators of the sounds. Thereby motion and emotion are transferred from >> originators to receivers. It is that sense of emotion, that we experience >> by our spoken words, that provides us with a sense of meaning. Our own >> emotion is the bottom line of our sense of meaning. Things have meaning >> only in as much, and in how, they affect us. And our emotions are the way >> we experience effects. Our words deal in the currency of meaning - our >> emotions - , and they refer to things. Because of this dual nature, words - >> the very things that identify things - inform us of the meaning of our >> world simply by affecting our emotions with their sounds. Since we are >> normally preoccupied with the referential aspect of words, it is >> subconsciously that we experience their emotional effects. >> >> Joseph Gilbert >> ______________________________**____________ >> _____ >> xmca mailing list >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/list info/xmca> >> >> > __________________________________________ > _____ > xmca mailing list > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* Joint Editor MCA: http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1 Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ Book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1608461459/ __________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca __________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca