Talk:Neutral level

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy: Language / Continental Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of language Continental philosophy Linguistics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 08:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be stated that we're here speaking of concepts that does not eliminate a spiritual or idealistic orientation of mind.

Accrued from my notions of how the wiki-discourse on semiotics develops here at Wikipedia I feel sligthly compelled to argue that the following wording give a misleading notion of semiotics:

"In semiotics the neutral level of a sign is the "trace" left behind, the physical or material creation or remains of esthesic and poietic processes, levels, and analyses of symbolic forms."

I want to argue that 'semiotics' in this article could be exchanged with 'semiology', as I find it significant of a Lacanian-Saussurean and materialist tradition of thought. Semiotics are not reducable to such. According to my learning and practice of performative arts as an applied semiotics ( as what I learned post-graduate level of theatre practice within the university sector of a branch of illuminati - i.e. University of Manchester... - ... meant humouristically in order to tease those who are playing according to such vanity).

The line of thought expressed in the quote is not significant of semiotics in large. Semiotics is not a unitary system of thought. Thus it is wrong to say that the neutral level is anything according to semiotics (here: The science and applied technology of signs). One may say "According to a semiotic analysis...".

As it here is written the text signifies a transcendent (i.e the-istic) notion of "The Semiotic". If there's anyting that, for me, is significant for semiotics it is exactly this criticism of such the-isms. For people that tries to understand what is semiotics (i.e. the Neutral Level) the quoted words will, I believe, lead the mind to associate semiotics with a materialist and physicalist perspective. On the other side a pragmatic (e.g. context and situation oriented) analysis, I believe, will lead to the understandment that many readers of this article who are positioning themselves, or are located within, the so-called tradition of 'western thought' are often biased and inclined to reflect/think in ways that are dualistic (i.e. dichotomy) or in binary oppositions, or even politically charged to do so in regard of a politicized reading of Hegel and Marx's concept of the dialectic - to which themselves have become the most representative of the dialectic of the ideal and material in ways that has charged the meaning-production of a seemingly global consensus of the political right and political left).

If one is regarding oneself as a somewhat "esoteric" semiotician (...here: "borrowing" the concept esoteric, intending to signify, but teasingly, a written text on semiotics that is understandable only for the initiated semioticians) what is expressed in the article can be agreeable in regard of the implicated non-dualist thought.

In such a case the sign 'physical' can be exchanged with 'spiritual', 'material' with 'ideal', and 'remains' with 'fruits' without actually altering the "trace" left behind.

The deconstruction sounds as follows:

"In an applied semiology the neutral level of a sign is the "trace" left behind a spiritual or ideal creation (i.e. art, masterpiece etc.), or fruits of creative processes and multi-staged levels of realisations, including analysis of the qualities of the symbolic forms as a consequense of an arousment of the analyst's or artist's mindfullness as one of several factors for reaching an understandment of the neutral level of applied semiology depending on the frames of reference (i.e. corporeal/physical, emotional/distribution of resources - economy, intellectual/cerebral, artistic/spiritual."

Neutral is a word that came into known use in English 1549 and refers to a mutually understood non-dual background. Neuter has been in use since the 14th century and is composed of ne meaning ''not'' + uter meaning which of two, thus synonymous with neither ^[1] The Neutral state is often misinterpreted as a passive state, but it should be understood as much not-passive as not-active. It literally refer to the non-dual state of body and mind, you and me or of any conflict.

--Xact (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]