Talk:Neutral level

2007-02-8 Automated pywikipediabot message
--CopyToWiktionaryBot 08:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Spiritual Materialism
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."

The Neutral level of the Neutral level
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 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)