A signification is indefinitely determinable (and the ‘indefinitely’ is obviously essential) without thereby being determined. It can always be marked out, provisionally assigned as an identitary element to an identitary relation with another identitary element […] and as such be ‘a something’ as the starting point for an open series of successive determinations. These determinations, however, in principle never exhaust it.
The ‘being of signification’, Castoriadis goes on, has been inadequately de-
scribed by «the distinctions between proper and figurative meaning, central
signification and semantic aura, denotation and connotation»
In fact there is no denotation opposed to connotations, there are only connotations or as
Castoriadis argues, «every expression is essentially tropic»
All language is essentially the ‘abuse of language’. Any formal rule of language, any structural
setting of language, is only applicable insofar as it allows for creation of significations in the sense of letting the creative organization of the magma prevail. Being in language means to accept that there is no final and in this sense determinate response to the issue of identity, that is, to ‘accepting to be in signification’s possibility of taking their bearings in and through what they say in order to move within it […] to use the code of designations in order to make other significations appear».
The ‘being of signification’, Castoriadis goes on, has been inadequately de-
scribed by «the distinctions between proper and figurative meaning, central
signification and semantic aura, denotation and connotation»
In fact there is no denotation opposed to connotations, there are only connotations or as
Castoriadis argues, «every expression is essentially tropic»
All language is essentially the ‘abuse of language’. Any formal rule of language, any structural
setting of language, is only applicable insofar as it allows for creation of significations in the sense of letting the creative organization of the magma prevail. Being in language means to accept that there is no final and in this sense determinate response to the issue of identity, that is, to ‘accepting to be in signification’s possibility of taking their bearings in and through what they say in order to move within it […] to use the code of designations in order to make other significations appear».
No comments:
Post a Comment