Hi,
I'm just speculating after having missed some of the discussion on this subjectdue to a major electric company failure in our great city here, but Jeremy Hunsinger wrote (I see from the archives)
"If you move out to systems of knowledge, you can make the same argument, [that "the" exchange system = the signifying system] but you can rely on different axioms.... I'm not really comfortable trying to locate this as an quantitive question though... i see it more as an interpretative and empirical question framed by your axioms."
I hope I haven't botched the quote, but I just wanted to add that is seems to me that it's always a question of intepretative empiricism. Quantify if you can ansd as much as you like, you still have to interpret the data. Perhaps I'sm simply agreeing with what you've already said. Umberto Eco has noted that "The ability of the textual manifestations to empty, destroy, or reconstruct preexisting sign-functions depends on the presence within the sign-function (that is, in the network of content figures) of a set of instructions oriented toward the (potential) production of different texts." It is potentially a different text we read every time we wake up, changing more or less according to concerted agreement. From my pov in this, speculative : ) as I said, well, skepticism leads to more text, new "instructions" I don't know if that's too obvious or no.t. In any case, ir read the sets of axioms as being something like gravity, force of gravity. Maybe I'm too influenced by
that power shutdhown! We didn't even have streetllights
Cheers, Will
---------------------------------
Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
