OK, so the meaning of a symbol is an actual object, not an object as mediated through a mental process (an idea)? That is, object --> symbol, not object --> idea --> symbol? What determines what symbol gets attached to which object(s)?
I have a general suspicion (acquired rather late in life) of attempts to reduce thought to language or behavior or other forms of externalities, which I fear is where this is going.
Then again, never having read Geertz, maybe I should just shut my pie hole.
--- On Tue, 8/11/09, Jeffrey Fisher <jeff.jfisher at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> as for the definition of symbol, basically a symbol is
> anything that serves
> as a "vehicle" for a concept/ion, which is its meaning.
> this can be an act
> or an object. he also uses the framework of symbols as
> being "extrinsic
> sources of information." this could be more precise, but i
> think the failure
> to rigorously distinguish between sign and symbol, as chuck
> notes (or to
> draw on peirce even further, for example), doesn't really
> vitiate the
> project. but clearly it's important that the whole thing is
> public int he
> sense of being out there in the world, somehow, not just in
> our heads.
> symbols, and so meaning, are fundamentally social, unless i
> really
> misunderstand geertz, and i sure hope i don't. i don't have
> the essay right
> here, so i can't quote him directly on the definition of
> symbol, but
> hopefully alan or someone else can correct or bring more in
> line, if that's
> necessary.
>
> how did we get to be talking about this in the first place?
> i have lost the
> thread of this thread.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Is meaning defined circularly, so that to have meaning
> and/or be a concept
> > something has to be defined using symbols? (Never
> having read Geertz.)
> >
> >
> > --- On Tue, 8/11/09, Jeffrey Fisher <jeff.jfisher at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > yeah, not to get into semiology. i
> > > was thinking of the way geertz talks
> > > about modeling, and this comes out in his
> definition of
> > > religion, which is
> > > my main work with geertz. but alan is on this --
> for geertz
> > > it's about
> > > meaning. concepts. symbols are abstract
> representations of
> > > concepts, i think
> > > is what he says? and the important part for
> geertz is
> > > meaning.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com