The Three Operators of Semiosis: Expression, Evocation, Objectification

Abstract

AbstractThis chapter is an application of the results gained so far. It investigates the relationships between the three semiotic operators the dynamics of which establishes stabilized Symbolic forms. Four of these forms are under closer scrutiny: Myth and Ritual, Language, Scientific knowledge and Technology. In the case of the first operator, that of Expression, one can show that its power is based on a blending of idiomatic meaning and performativity that Cassirer calls “symbolic pregnance”. Although the power of Expression is usually recognized in Myth, Ritual and Language only, it is also at work in Science and in Technology which are both nurtured by symbolic pregnances in a more concealed way. The second operator, called Evocation, is concerned with the possible transfer of symbolic pregnances which are always locally rooted in perception but can expand to larger, less immediate, fields. In this respect, the construction of a mythical space and time as well as the mythical mode of numbering are conceived as some of the most basic elements which pervade the mythical field. In the linguistic domain, two modes of transfer can be described: either an inductive one which leads to a substantial conception of generality or a functional one in which generality derives from the exemplarity of singular cases. These two forms of generality induce two different views on signification that participate in the inner and outer construction of “Symbolic forms”. In Science, the way Cassirer uses the concept of group of transformation is typically a way that allows for a wide range of transfers, from perceived forms (Gestalten) to various forms of knowledge both in Mathematics, Natural and Human sciences. Technology has its specific mode of transfer as well for technology does not only operate with tools but on tools, specifying thereby the conditions of their use and generating specific domains for their relevance. Objectification is the last semiotic operator studied by Cassirer, once the purely arbitrary dimension of signs is acquired and accepted. It presents itself as a paradox, that of a semiotic construction which should not be interpreted as the result of a construction but as objective nature. This is the case in Mythical thinking which describes a natural order that does not depend on the whim of individuals but is subject to laws and (divine) will. It is also the case in Language where idiomaticity should not be conceived as a form of empirical resistance to conceptual knowledge but as a first step towards the construction of possible objects. As for Science, it is the very concept of nature which presents itself in a problematic way since Science appears as the attempt to conceptually construct a science of nature that does not depend on scientific mediations. In the case of Technology, it becomes clear that the concept of nature produced by technological mediations questions the very independence of nature although technology itself only claims to copy a pre-existing nature.KeywordsExpression, evocation and objectification as trans-categorial operatorsExpression as the most basic sense-making processEvocation as transferObjectification as modes of objectivityCase studies: trans-categorial operators in myth and ritual, language, scientific knowledge and technology