.01

Russell Daylight

The Difference Between Semiotics and Semiology
Synopsis

What is the relationship between semiotics and semiology? Received wisdom tells us that the “semiotics” of Charles Sanders Peirce largely overlaps in function and meaning with the “semiology” of Ferdinand de Saussure. Among semioticians more attentive to the nuances of each system, such as Sebeok, Deely, and Eco, semiology occupies that part of semiotics which relates either to conventional communication, or intentional communication, or some other subset of semiotic acts. In this essay I aim to demonstrate quite a different relation between the two fields of study. Drawing upon close readers of Saussure such as Harris and Weber, I will contrast semiotics as an act of “representation” with semiology as an act of “articulation”. What I will propose is that semiotics and semiology form wholly separate but contiguous domains of explanation.

Both semiotics and semiology by conventional interpretations and intentional acts of psychologistic persons and personification are acts, action and agency as the logical constraints of 'the possible', and therefore are the explanations in terms of being validated as the excuse that it is human subjectivity (with self-deception, fallacy and mental disorder), as the impossibility of word superseding itself, namely the dualism, paradox and error that are the mayhem.

So is Russell Daylight any better? No, it is the contradiction 'held' as holy farce euphemized, facilitated and extended as 'paradox' to the mayhem that 'what' something is, is impossible unless explained by more than whatever word-meaning it is, i.e., what it is.

Thus the absurdity that anything is only what it is if it is masked with psychologistic Newspeak mysticism, that is, with shamanisms like open-mindedness or mindfulness... answering the questions how and why (conventionalized as intention or interpretation). It is the psychologistic personification of everything, permanently esoterically beyond or superseding what anything is, by the same questions that invoke 'the existence of' God, the questions 'how' and 'why' anything thereby 'exists' at all.

.02

Geoffrey Haselhurst

Great understanding of the insanity of the human world comes from understanding the lack of free will, the programmed nature of humans. We are genetically programmed to be culturally programmed, and that cultural programming evolved from ignorant primitive tribal humans and is necessarily untrue and insane.

So we are evolving from insane foundations, as more truth is discovered it must battle against the established cultural insanity, and this is a slow painful process over many generations.

(I believe absolute truth is found with a wave structure of matter in absolute space, but a rigid space, not your flowing space.)

Geoffrey, I don't see Thad's space as flowing, and yours as rigid. As wave it is flowing, and as medium it is rigid, in both cases, right?

Geoffrey Haselhurst

As wave it is flowing, and as medium it is rigid.

    Correct.

The necessary connection of a continuously connected space (nearly rigid elastic wave medium) is required to explain how all things (matter standing wave patterns in space) are connected by one thing, space.

.03

Apart from 'humanity is fallen or abysmal' is the error that the error is...

Quantum space theory (qsm, Thad Roberts) describes a space that is continuously connected in that only quanta register at all, as everyone's total physical quantum-unity mind-verse. Quanta are that by which the five minimum and maximum measurable basic quantities (∴ 'quanta') exist, as represented by the five universal dimensional Planck-constants and the dimensionless numbers π and ж .

After this paragraph I quote Thad, and all five his points are relevant to wave structure of matter theory (wsm, Milo Wolff and Geoffrey Haselhurst). The point of the continuum (4) in relation to (1), (2), (3) and (5) is that everything (we sense) is emergent and that 'our emergent universe' (also named 'spacetime') is equivalent to rigid wsm space. [The personification] 'mind' or 'consciousness' by definition never registers anything but phenomena in terms of phenomena. No one can honestly claim that the noumena exist. Furthermore (5) is the idea that even 'the universe' as a whole is subjectively phenomenal, and is equivalent to wsm's personal overlapping universes.

Thad Roberts (March 17 2020)

"If you’re a red pill kind of person, here’s what you need to know to get started. The simplest explanation I know of starts from the assumption that the substrate of reality (spacetime) is a quantum fluid. A quantum fluid has 5 prescribed boundaries. (1) A minimum temporal resolution (reflecting the cut off due to quantization), (2) a minimum scale (defining the radius of the minimum piece (or quantum) of the fluid), and three maximum boundaries, (3) the scale in which a fluctuation in the arrangements of the fluid’s parts can be distinguished from noise, (4) the maximum scale that resolves the fluid as being made up of parts (the zero-boundary of discretization—beyond which the fluid behaves like a continuum), and (5) the boundary that defines the entire collection of fluid (the radius of the universe).

"If we take those 5 boundaries to be the 5 Planck constants (1 = the Planck time [minimum], 2 = the Planck length [minimum], and 3, 4 and 5 [maxima, given the two minima]: 3 = the Planck charge, 4 = the Planck mass, 5 = the Planck temperature, then all the constants of Nature are simply explained as the intersections of those 5 boundaries (and two dimensionless numbers π and ж which characterize stable mixing of those boundaries)."

.04

Imaginary Numbers Are Real [Part 1: Introduction] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T647CGsuOVU

Isn't the colloquial answer thereby also correct and not far fetched that everything is real by virtue of being something?

No matter how 'complex' geometry is, 1-d or n-d (any differential {curve} order), it is still point, or whatever the point 'complex geometry' is.

Consider that a line (1d) — if the presumption is that it supersedes the point-motion (word-differential) that it (thing) is — is no less farcically contradictory than any n dimensions of point-supersession. The explanation that reality is paradoxical or mind-blowing (primordially pneumatically amazing like spirit) or more recently just 'fun' or 'farce' does not resolve the error of the so-called 'agency' of 'nature', 'intention' or 'interpretation'. Yes, the point that something is complex is a good point, but it is as point that it is something.

.05

1)

Mathematics is objective truth

How it is interpreted in relation to human activity is another matter

The mathematics of measurement is of course approximate because no measurements are precise to molecular scales lets say, But in real life these approximations are completely satisfactory

Satisfactory is not objective truth. Something is satisfactory according to expectations. Anyway, how can anything be objective truth when that is open to interpretation?

And you are right that measurements are approximate, satisfactory for what is needed, but never the truth.

Objectivity is the same dichotomy as subjectivity, and paradox, farce and fake are holy where the twain meet merry with personification, which is inside and outside the now, and where merely excluding the inside the now from the abysmal point-motion or word superseding equation 'agency' is anything but transcendence.

.06

.07

.08

.09

.10