Kalvi Kull wrote a piece examining Lotman (among others) in Semiotica, vol.
120(3/4), 1998, pp. 299-310.

In it Kull cites:

"According to Lotman, a mechanism consisting of a sender, receiver, and
transmitter of information does not work as a semiotic mechanism, while not
embedded in a semiosphere. Also, biological terminology based on inheritance
and reproduction hardly allows any further generalization due to its strong
connection to the molecular genetic mechanisms which assume the concrete
substances responsible for this process. Therefore, semiotic terminology of
text and dialogue, recognition and translation may be much better suited for
the description of isomorphisms between biological and cultural phenomena.
This may be acceptable for both the language of natural sciences and that of
the humanities and arts."

He goes on to state that he, Kull,

". . . define[s] semiosis as a process of translation, which makes a copy of
a text, suitable to replace the original text in some situations, but which
is also so different from the original text that the original cannot be used
(either spatially, or temporally, or due to the differences in text-carrier
or language) for the same functions. This translation process (i.e.,
semiosis) requires two types of recognition processes. First, the
translation assumes that parts of the original text are recognized (on the
basis of pre- existing memory-text) and as a result new structures are
built, whereas a certain isomorphism between the original and the new text
is retained. And second, there is a recognition process which starts the
translation process, which is required for the existence of the whole
process on another level, and which at the same time gives an intentional
dimension to any particular semiosis. I also state that the one carrying out
the translation (the translator, which includes memory) is itself a text,
i.e. the result of some translation process.

>From this definition it follows that semiosis always requires a previous
semiosis which produced the translator. Since the translator already
recognizes, i.e. matches with something, the form of which has been stored,
i.e. which has previously been matched, it follows that the current
translation process is preceded by some previous translation process. Also,
the text used for translation is the product of a previous semiosis."

Although I would argue in my context that a poem system does not rely upon
signification or the definition of a methodology of signification. Lotman's
semioshpere is a pervasive world view though. But my poem system is an
experiential meta-lingual dichroic mechanism. It isn't so much a
representing figure as an instigational mechanism (in the sense that all
languages are meta-languages the poem is beyond language being a thing in
itself, almost a meta-meta-language, where the signifier is indeterminate
and without value) which may contain referential elements that are deeply
flawed and purposely disruptive in any semiotic continuum. If one could
describe such a thing!

That's enough woolly thinking for one day I reckon!

With best wishes

Christopher
_____________________________________________________

Christopher Hamilton-Emery
Production Manager
Salt Publishing
PO Box 202,
Applecross 6153
Western Australia

email: [log in to unmask]
web: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Square/1664/folio_salt.html
_____________________________________________________

Find John Kinsella's website at www.geocities.com/SoHo/Square/8574


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%