Thumbnail
Access Restriction
Open

Author Deely, John ♦ Haworth, Karen ♦ Prewitt, Terry ♦ Corrington, Robert S.
Source CiteSeerX
Content type Text
File Format PDF
Subject Domain (in DDC) Computer science, information & general works ♦ Data processing & computer science
Subject Keyword Semiotic Self ♦ Human Process ♦ Basic Feature ♦ Elusive Nature ♦ Sign Theory ♦ Legitimate Semiotic Dimension ♦ Religious Core ♦ Human Self ♦ Omnivorous Quality ♦ General Semiotic Framework ♦ Semiotic Term ♦ Biological Structure ♦ Fitful Trace ♦ Semiotic Theory ♦ So-ca Ued Anthroposemiosis ♦ Generic Anilysis ♦ Ontological Difference
Abstract When semiotic explores the nature of the human self, it employs concepts and categories derived from a more general semiotic framework. While this is not always inap-propriate, such a strategy is inclined to clairn too much for the efficacy and scobb of sign theory as it applies to the elusive nature of the self. The attempt to locate so-ca--Ued anthroposemiosis within the larger biological structures of zoosemiosis runs the risk of effacing those traits of the human process that are distinctive among the living orders of the world. The omnivorous quality of semiotic theory is no where more eviient than in its analyses of the basic features of the human process. What is needed is a more generic anilysis that remains sensitive to those dimensions of the person that cannot be rendered into semiotic terms, even while retaining the legitimate semiotic dimensions of the self. It is possible, of course, to exhibit those features of the self that are both directly and indirectly serniotic. But such an analysis, if itfails to acknowledge the pon er"of the ontological difference and the fitful traces of transcendence, remains onesided and possibly deitructive of the religious core of the self. In this context the
Educational Role Student ♦ Teacher
Age Range above 22 year
Educational Use Research
Education Level UG and PG ♦ Career/Technical Study
Publisher Date 1989-01-01