Semiotic suggestions

Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814) has been a German philosopher that at 1794 written a pamphlet with title Doctrine of science, and he explained some concept very important for a discipline that, after, is officially is named as semiotics, this is study about sign and mean of sign, sign that we, her, must consider with all means, this is it isn’t alone means of language but all signs; this is about a written romance, this is style, style of painting and then his author, that in art critical is attribution, style of architectural building to search name of architect, or about medicine all sign of symptoms, daily weather we can preview a thunderstorm or muggy. This concept we can find, but alone for language in book of Fernand de Saussure (1853-1913), that adopted this concept for language, but he remarked also mean of language and signifying, this is what is mean about a text; an expression that can assumes some mean or other mean in determined contest, then to change all mean of a discourse if we rapport this word to a context. Importance of word and his mean is suggested also by Fichte; a step of Doctrine of science he says: “Nothing proposition is possible without content or without form…it must be certain immediately and for itself; and this means that, except that the content determines his form and reciprocally his content; this form agrees to content and this content agrees to content”, and other step says: “In the proposition The gold is a matter, that we know something is gold and matter…This is an affirmative proposition and this relation is his form…this first principle of Doctrine of science must have form and contest…this must be certain immediately and to itself, and this must means that the his context determines his form, and form the context…This form agrees alone to this context”; these words seem absolutely obvious, but these are ground of semiotic think, because a context is rationally reportable to a form alone; then a word in a text is reportable to a context alone, but if we change context same word is different, then his semiotic valour is changed, then the form and context change every content, but this is semiotic.

Alessandro Lusana

       

 

Satanic epicurism

 Reading of satanic bible, we can know the Epicurism think, this is a very assumption of dictates that we can find in Epicure Letter around felicity or letter to Meneceus that Epicure started with these words: “Never we are too young or old to know felicity, during all ages is very well that we work for our soul”. Furthermore, he has said: “The goods are, it’s evident, but they aren’t in opinion of common people that wrong always around them”. These steps of Epicure’s letter are very resembling with dictates of satanic bible that says, except existence of God, that felicity for man is to get pleasure and he says: “The wise as he dislike to live he doesn’t fear death…as foods he gets alone better, and he doesn’t choses quantity but alone quality”. Furthermore, he says: “We must remember that all future isn’t our, but it isn’t all not ours. So we can think that it doesn’t happens and we disliked for contrary”. So far, we have considered Epicure, and I am going not to mention satanic bible, but some step is very interesting for some concept that this book expresses; in fact satanical bible says that man is natural creature, then he must follows alone his natural needs, and he must live with satisfaction of these needs, but he is independent from all religion, in fact satanic religion is, if we want consider it with religious meaning, as an atheist bible, because all text is around freedom of man and around satisfaction of his natural habit, food, sex and other; we can notice, during reading, that in satanical creed neither God neither Satan are present as deities, in fact author, this is Anton La Vey, says that man must live alone for independent life, and if he want can makes something otherwise not; he denies common opinions around satanical creed, and other. It’s seems common opinion of Epicure around divinities, that we have seen before, and felicity and future depend by our directly, as La Vey says around satisfaction and our future that we can get now with our work, but without think to future punishment or other that can distract ous to our life that must be like and independent. Epicure says: “The strong knowledge of our desire let that we can chose for our body and our soul, because it’s duty of happy life, and we address every work to it”, same concept that we read in the satanical bible. Feurbach (1804-1072) a German philosopher is present in this book because satanical bible denies every deities, and in fact Feuerbach is mentioned on the step: “God didn’t man but man didn’t God”. 

Alessandro Lusana