[lbo-talk] Blue Dogs cashing in

[Jeffrey Fisher]

I see where you're going semiotically here, but this what Geertz is doing.
The symbol is the object/act. The meaning it carries is the abstract
concept, not an object. But he does think of these concepts/conceptions as
meaningful primarily in terms of their being expressed materially, which is
part of why any objects or acts can be symbols -- if they carry meaning.
This underscores the centrality of ritual, and religious doctrine (for
example) then is seen as important insofar as it matters for what people
actually do (whether in ritual strictly speaking, or in simply acting more
broadly). There is something William James about it, in that respect. But I
think it's fair to say that Geertz is very much in the tradition of Durkheim
and Weber.
But Geertz is worth reading, imo, and I think the case is much more solid
than with Badiou. Everyone talks about the balinese cockfight essay, and I'm
not dissing it, but for me the ones that have always mattered are "thick
description" and the essay on "religion as a cultural system," the latter of
which I usually make students in religion classes read. Both are in _the
interpretation of cultures_. The problem, as Alan already noted, is his
emphasis on meaning. On the one hand, this is very compelling, and on the
other, it means (as it were) that he misses things. Myself, I'm fine with
that, because his approach to the question of religion, and of culture in
general, is useful.

and i'm presuming that if
i've said anything wildly misleading, alan or someone will correct me.

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com> wrote:


>
> 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
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>