🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1161@pdn.UUCP> alan@pdn.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes:

>One of the more interesting results of semiotics is that in order for
>something to serve as a "sign", it must be possible for the "sign" to
>be in error.  In other words, there can be no symbolic communication
>without the possibility of lying (or at least being mistaken).  If
>messages can inherently be false, then communication inherently
>requires belief in the veracity of the message.
>
>It is precisely the ability to be false that gives messages their power;
>it would otherwise be impossible to discuss the hypothetical cases, the "might
>be's", "might have been's", "could be's" and "should have been's".
>Abstractions require the ability to signify what is not.

Excellent point. Makes a lot of sense, for most messages.

Some messages, such as recitations of poetry, paintings, and the like, as well
as various aspects of body language, songs, and the like can't really be
mistaken or true.  Such messages are meant to convey a certain experience
(i.e. a mental picture or sensation or sense of experiencing something) to the
receiver (sometimes the exact experience is not specified by the originator).
Other messages are statements that *could* be meaningfully described as true
or false.

These messages, I would maintain, are those messages which refer to a
concept.  In these cases, the intent of the communicator is to convey a
concept, rather than an experience.  It is in the nature of a concept to be
considered true or false, but, in any case, a logical possibility.

Of course, we could define "message" to exclude non-conceptual communication,
in which case what you have said is exactly true.
-- 
"Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind."

Sarge Gerbode
Institute for Research in Metapsychology
950 Guinda St.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
UUCP:  pyramid!thirdi!sarge