How do i get started on semiotics? (Pic is actually unrelated)

>>24514237 (OP)
The fundamental problem with semiotics is that you have to know before knowing. Begin with the contemplation of symbols themselves, numbers, letters, etc. Then contemplate how we transform these symbols into more complex composite symbols. Then contemplate what it is that these complex symbols point towards.

As for reading, once you understand the world of semiotics on this basic level through the contemplation of the least abstract semiotic dimension, read Plato, as many of his dialogues as you can.

>>24514237 (OP)
These might help you. Read the middle and right and then use the left for reference

>>24514237 (OP)
Lmao semiotics is so based because it literally truth-nuke-destroys “trans” “gender” ideology so completely it’s literally unreal.

>>24514237 (OP)
saussure course in general linguistics
ck ogden meaning of meaning

>>24514475
Who fucking cares. It’s 2025. Why are you still on that trans shit.

>>24514548
>tranny fingers typed this

>>24514237 (OP)
infographic
>note
that stuff gets very deep very fast ie, much of it is pschyo babble, but the beginning stuff is interesting

There are two very different types of semiotics. Post-modern and post-structuralist theory grows out of Sausser. Tripartite semiotics goes back to Saint Augustine in De Dialectica, the Doctrina Signorum, and is developed all through scholasticism, particularly by Saint Thomas and John Poinsot. This is the semiotics C.S. Peirce builds on and is the dominant semiotics used in the natural sciences, biosemiotics like Terrance Deacon, etc.

John Deely is a great source here. I would start with his dialogue because it is free and an introduction. You can even find an abridged version acted on YouTube.

https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/sss/article/view/SSS.2001.29.2.17

Deely's Four Ages of Understanding is a history focused on semiotics and it's quite good.

If you want to see how this interacts with natural science and information theory, check out: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14688417.2015.1072948

The other semiotics is more common in litcrit, critical theory, etc. Semiotics the Basics is a decent introduction there. Personally, I think this offshoot is a huge muddle for a number of reasons. Not that there isn't interesting work there, but the overall philosophy it has tended to be embedded is deficient, and at times tended towards the farcical.

>>24516118
Umberto Eco is another good source on the older semiotics that comes out of Augustine. His book comparing it with Anglo philosophy of language is pretty good.

>>24516118
It's always bothered me how philosophy of language ignores everything before 1900 or so and almost everything not written in English, while also not paying the attention to information theory, linguistics, neuroscience, and animal communication the way it ought to. Wittgensteinians are the worst about this, but others do it too.