A language primer

In the beginning was the sign.

This post is the second in a series of essays that will deal with language, what we think we’re doing when we interpret, and why what we think we’re doing when we engage language is absolutely crucial in arming ourselves against the predation of the left — and too many on the right.

Okay. Let’s take this one step at a time, so that for all of you new to semiotics (the study of signs and symbols and their use or interpretation) and hermeneutics (the study of interpretation), what might seem dense or difficult instead becomes ordinary and second nature.

First, semiotics. In the field of semiotics — sometimes called semiology — what is important for our purposes is Sign Theory. Whether it’s the very simple semiological breakdown of the sign popularized by Ferdinand de Saussure in his lectures at the University of Geneva, collected in Cours de linguistique générale (published in 1916); or the more rigorous sign theory of Charles S. Peirce, who adds an additional component to the breakdown of the sign, won’t much matter here. What you need to keep in mind is only that the sign — defined loosely as anything that communicates a meaning to an interpreter that is not the sign itself — can be broken down into constituent parts, and that those parts are essentially arbitrary. This is life after you piss off Yahweh with your smug ancient skyscrapers.