Semantics (2)

Subtitle: A-c-a-d-e-m-i-c H-o-g-w-a-s-h


‘He argued that there was no inherent or necessary

relationship between that which carries the

meaning, and the actual meaning which is carried.

For example, the word “car” is not actually a car – the

meaning of car could be carried by any random

string of letters. It just so happens that, in English,

that meaning is carried by the letters  c-a-r.’


No kidding!


Of course, how stupid of me! You can’t step into three

letters, rev up and drive away. In English, in Swahili

or whatever. Letters are not the object, and letters

grouped into words are or have only become

representative of an object. They are symbols in

sound or on a sheet or screen, like money is a piece of

paper which cannot be eaten but buys you the goodies

which can. Money the means, not the essence, and

the  paper symbol of wealth. Ah, and yes, the word

money can be eaten, when made out of chocolate



Well now, what a useful revelation. Making that

Semiotics, the study of all this, actually analyses the

obvious, and the obvious is immaterial, and the totally

immaterial to all effects… nothing, merely concluding

that a symbol is not a practical, a real thing, and this

knowledge of significance only to poor bastards who

cannot otherwise see or feel or carry the real thing.


So that in the name of the rose, what can all this

onanistic thinking deliver about the     S-p-e-e-d of the

C-a-r, so important to most? Or really tell us about

E-x-i-s-t-e-n-c-e? Or H-u-m-a-n H-u-n-g-e-r?



No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: