Umberto Eco: el poder oculto de los signos 🧠📚

追加: 2026-05-12

[00:00:02]A very warm greeting to this virtuous community. I hope everyone is doing well. Today we need to continue with the course we are offering on structuralism and its current derivatives. On this occasion we have to address what semiotics is precisely, remembering that semiotics is both a theory and a method of analysis regarding signs and especially meanings, which is what we are going to address on this occasion with the author Umberto Eco, an author who certainly ends up being perhaps one of the most emblematic in semiotics, precisely because he concentrates his theory on what are meanings and signs.

[00:00:47]So, from here on we will see that meaning in cultural life takes on another dimension. I want to explain this because sometimes we, and I say this with all due reservations, sometimes we think that language is simply, or assume that it is simply, a kind of exercise in which people associate a certain sign with a meaning in isolation.

[00:01:24]Sometimes we believe that language is simply a system of references, as if I said blue and I meant a certain type of color or I said tall and I meant a description of a certain height.

[00:01:43]when in reality language has countless components that are open to interpretations and meanings.

[00:01:56]What could kneeling mean, for example?

[00:02:04]For some it is a sign of submission, for others it is a form of intimate practice, for others it is simply a pain in the legs, for others it is respect and reverence for an authority.

[00:02:21]Notice how a simple gesture will go beyond what the sign itself is. And in fact, everything around us is a sign.

[00:02:34]We are surrounded by signs.

[00:02:37]Even the clothes we wear already have a message, and that message can be interpreted and, in turn, reinterpreted.

[00:02:44]And the very history of man is subject to interpretation and reinterpretation. I think it's interesting to approach the author from this perspective.

[00:02:55]Perhaps it's interesting to be able to understand this dimension. Okay, today we're going to talk about Umberto Eco.

[00:03:09]Umberto Eco is known throughout much of the world, practically everywhere now.

[00:03:21]Thanks to two of his very well -known novels, in fact, one even inspired a film not very favorable to the church, it must be acknowledged, it must be said in that sense, which is the name of the rose. Perhaps many have not read the book; I have read it, although I do not agree with the description that is so critical and perhaps so flawed regarding the history of the church. I cannot deny that he certainly has an enviable prose style.

[00:03:56]His two books, or rather, he has written more, but Merton Eco is best known for The Name of the Rose, The Novel, and Foucault's Pendulum. And both works allude to aspects of past and present theories of the sign, as well as a huge variety of academic texts, especially from the Middle Ages, and of other kinds such as Sherlock Holmes in The Name of the Rose or the Corpus Hermeticum in Foucault's Pendulum. He is an author with a broad general knowledge who will try to study what signs and meanings are throughout history and later express it in his writings.

[00:04:39]This is important to clarify because I actually have a project that, well, it seems there has been a problem with the publisher and we haven't been able to finalize it yet, but many times those of us who do philosophy also do it through novels, fiction, imagination, and creativity.

[00:05:00]Not all philosophers are systematic like Aristotle or Saint Thomas Aquinas. Not everyone writes a dictionary of philosophy like José Ferrermora.

[00:05:11]There are authors who, through dialogues, as Plato does, or through novels, as Ran does, also write their philosophy.

[00:05:20]Humberto Eco was born in 1932 in Piedmont, Italy. In fact, it is rare to find an Italian in these ranks of structuralism, post-structuralism, semiotics, postmodernism, because most of them come from France in that sense. That's striking. This point is at least quite striking.

[00:05:40]Humberto was born in 1932 in Italy. Before becoming a semiotician, he studied philosophy and specialized in philosophical theory and aesthetics of the Middle Ages. Dai and his inspiration for the name of the rose.

[00:05:53]His thesis at the University of Turin on the aesthetics of Thomas Aquinas was published when he was 24 years old in 1956.

[00:06:02]Three years later, Umberto Eco wrote a chapter, The Development of Medieval Aesthetics, for a four-volume handbook on history and aesthetics. In 1986, this chapter appeared in English translation under the title Art and Beauty in the Middle Ages.

[00:06:20]This erudition, as we have already noted, I believe, serves good purposes in the fiction of Umberto Eco. But what is its link to semiotics? The answer can be affirmative for several reasons. There is a link.

[00:06:37]First, as Todorov and others have shown, the time of St. Thomas Aquinas is also a chapter in the history of the theory of signs.

[00:06:47]The Aristotle who so influenced the Angelic Doctor has himself left his recognized mark on contemporary semiotics, for example, in the theory of metaphor.

[00:06:59]Second, as a medievalist, Umberto Eco is fascinated by the writings of James Joyce, in which there are extensive references to the Anomasachian, Aristotle, Dante, medieval beasts, and rhetoric. I insist, I who have suddenly had the opportunity to study the Middle Ages, badly called the Middle Ages, very badly called the Middle Ages, by the way, it is fascinating. It is a steel of creativity that is sometimes underestimated and that has a captivating aesthetic that should be re-explored, especially in these postmodern times. But at least that's my position, I insist, in matters of aesthetics I don't think we are in a position to make judgments at an aesthetic level. Yes, in terms of beauty, but aesthetically I think it's a deeply subjective judgment.

[00:07:55]His interest in James Joyce should be seen in the context of Eco's curiosity and admiration for the modern world and for modernity as a historical and cultural phenomenon. Joyce fills the gap between Eco's scientific passion for a past time and the empirical world of the keel.

[00:08:15]Now, a world of complexity, a world of diversity, a polyphonic world, an open world. The modern world, for better or for worse, is certainly an open world. To put it simply, in the Middle Ages, one was born and died a Catholic, and one's identity was being Catholic. And suddenly modernity is about belonging to a Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or Muslim religion, belonging to a nation, belonging to a provincial state, belonging to a clan, belonging to a particular tradition.

[00:08:47]Then, suddenly, the world opens up, the discovery of America, the new trade routes, the new political structures of modernity; these are certainly complex times.

[00:09:04]The two poles of Umberto Eco's intellectual field can be appreciated if one knows that in the year he published the chapter on his medieval aesthetics, an article appeared with his name entitled The work of movement and the consciousness of the age, which examined how modern music and modern writing... We are talking here about Stonhausen, Berio, Bolus, Malarme, Joyce.

[00:09:29]Modern art, such as Calder, Posi in relation to modern science, Einstein, Born, Heisenberg, produces works in motion and open works in which the recipient becomes an active element to achieve the provisional completion of the work or where the work itself puts the openness first, because that is characteristic of modernity. In other words, ultimately, the subject who receives information from philosophy, art, or science, that subject who is receiving that information, what informs, what gives form as an actual principle, is no longer a passive element of intelligence. That is, one learns, one receives that knowledge in the intellect. In modernity, in fact, the receiving subject is an active element.

[00:10:20]Okay, I'm going to explain it in simple terms because it's not the topic we're discussing today. But what about the double-slit experiment? I do n't know if there are any scientists watching us, but they can prove me wrong.

[00:10:35]What happens in the double-slit experiment? What is the ultimate conclusion beyond whether light is a particle or a wave? What is the final conclusion reached? that ultimately everything depends on the viewer, the observer.

[00:10:52]Ultimately, that's it. So, what you 're seeing, Humberto Eco, is ultimately that reality. Of course, they don't yet consider themselves postmodern; in fact, Foucault does, but up to that point we are talking about the 20th century and it is still understood as part of modernity or at least the culmination of modernity. Ultimately, all scientific, artistic, and philosophical truths involve the participation of the receiving element, right? Other people too.

[00:11:24]So, from this starting point, Humberto Eco develops the theme of his intellectual trajectory that refers to the role of the reader. What characterizes Humberto Eco's philosophy is the role of the reader. It is no longer just about writing and thinking what is written there as an isolated message. It's not even about considering the context and background of the author. With Umberto Eco, we also begin to think about what role the reader plays, because ultimately, works have a recipient. Therefore, the recipient of the work is more important. Here comes the eternal argument.

[00:12:06]Here comes a discussion that everyone should think about at some point in their life, if they have enjoyed music, if they have enjoyed movies, if they have enjoyed love in a relationship, if they have enjoyed anything in their lives.

[00:12:20]And greetings to my dear brother Omar Álvarez and to everyone on the other side.

[00:12:25]If you have ever enjoyed anything in life, you have to stop and think, what is here matters and why does it matter?

[00:12:38]We return to the role of reader.

[00:12:41]If I write, what is more important?

[00:12:43]What is written or what the reader of my works receives?

[00:12:49]If I do a free live course like this, does what I do matter? Does knowledge itself matter, or does the receiver matter?

[00:13:01]Because this has endless implications.

[00:13:02]If it goes beyond just seeing, this has many implications beyond who reads a poem.

[00:13:18]Think, for example, about love.

[00:13:21]Even thinkers like Albert Changes, who are among my favorites.

[00:13:30]We would say, how difficult it is not to be loved, but even more difficult not to know how to love, which is to have that receiver of one's love. Because of course unrequited love hurts, but it's even more painful not knowing how to love, because what matters is what the other person receives. And in a true loving relationship, it matters more to us than for the other person to be happy, because we find happiness in the other person. One as a writer, one as an artist. And I say this in my own name. I say this in my own name.

[00:14:05]In my case, writing makes me happy, but what makes me happier is that those who read my writing enjoy it. It makes me happy to give a free course like this. It makes me happier that this is useful to those who receive it.

[00:14:24]It's the external discussion. It's the eternal debate. Now comes another point to consider here.

[00:14:41]Here's another point to consider in this regard. Since we're talking about philosophy.

[00:14:48]What role does the recipient of the work play? It's a never-ending debate. I was talking about it the other day with someone very close to me.

[00:14:57]If it is possible to separate the artist from the work.

[00:15:05]He was talking about whether it's possible to separate the artist from the work. Good.

[00:15:12]What role does the recipient of the artwork play?

[00:15:16]Because the one who receives the work is also the creator of the work in postmodernity. We are not in postmodernity yet. Still.

[00:15:24]However, this active role of the receiving agent is already being glimpsed.

[00:15:32]The interpretation is the responsibility of the one who receives the message, not the one who creates it. Okay, now that that's cleared up, let's move on to his philosophy. Today we're going to talk about codes and signs.

[00:16:04]Okay, please tell me if you understand what I'm explaining. If you have any questions, please let me know. Please tell me.

[00:16:12]In a recent statement on reading and interpretation in the last years of his life, Humberto Eco emphasized that the anything-goes version of postmodern criticism is not what is implicit in the notion of the open work. To say that a work is open to interpretation means that anything goes.

[00:16:34]This is even seen, believe it or not, where else, for example, in apologetics debates? In apologetic debates, an open interpretation of a biblical text is sometimes considered a kind of anything goes, like the anything goes postmodernism.

[00:16:51]We can even interpret Jesus Christ as a kind of revolutionary, Bolshevik therian who reads Frida Kahlo and smokes yahuasca. That 's not the case.

[00:17:05]The notion of an open work does not imply a whole, okay?

[00:17:13]It can be said that every literary work proposes a model reader corresponding to the real and justifiable possibilities established by the text.

[00:17:22]For Humberto Eco, suggesting that an infinite number of readings is possible for any text is a completely empty gesture. That does not mean, however, that the empirical author should be able to judge the validity of the interpretation based on his own interpretations.

[00:17:42]It's like a middle ground. It's not that there's only one way to interpret a text.

[00:17:47]Nor is it that any infinite form of interpretation is equally valid.

[00:17:53]A problem then arises that any author has to solve, and which, in my opinion, Berto Eco never manages to fully resolve. What is the standard for establishing the limits of that open interpretation? [clears throat] That's the thing. What is the canon for establishing the limits of an open interpretation? It's a discussion I'm always having with people around me. When I hear them talk, I love the phenomenon of love in postmodernity. It's a phenomenon that fascinates me greatly, and I hear young people, people 10 years younger than me, talking about it, for example, about fidelity, loyalty, dedication, care, and respect. Of course, we would all expect certain criteria, let's say, in universal terms of a relationship. However, we have cultures that are polygamous, we have cultures that are endogamous, but at the same time, what would be the criterion to say it is right or wrong? For example, insulting the boyfriend or mistreating the girlfriend. What would the standards be?

[00:19:09]Each one would have their own answer. One might say, "Because God forbids it." Others would say, "Because we cannot harm the innocent."

[00:19:16]Others would say, "Because it doesn't generate happiness." These are criteria. But the question is, who sets those criteria?

[00:19:25]What is the barometer for saying what I expect? I have the right to demand it, and it also happens to some extent with texts, and to some extent with everything that the world of philosophy, science, and art does.

[00:19:42]What are those criteria for determining legitimate interpretation? I'm not saying correct or valid because there are multiple interpretations, but what would the criteria be? Which, I insist, is directly linked to what the criteria are for claiming that Revelation is the word of God. What is the criterion for recognizing that the Book of Revelation or Genesis is the word of God? I do n't know if I'm hitting enter at this point or not. Well, I hope so. I hope something is becoming clear. I hope so.

[00:20:17]For Eco, to propose that any infinite number of readings are possible for any text is a completely empty gesture, and this does not mean, however, that an empirical author should be able to judge the validity of the interpretation in his own interpretation. The aim, I insist, is to indicate evidence that can produce a relevant and coherent interpretation, even if it is against the wishes of the empirical author. In this sense, Eco likes to quote Finning Asquake's phrase, which refers to that ideal reader who suffers from an ideal insomnia.

[00:20:55]The ideal reader is not actually a perfect reader, but someone who represents the range of possible readings justified by the structure of the text itself. The reader who is awake to the possibilities. That 's the ideal reader. In other words, it is not one that assumes a single interpretation, but one that can understand the various interpretations. He would be the ideal reader. A concrete example: you are talking to your partners and one day you type "okay" and a period.

[00:21:39]That has multiple interpretations.

[00:21:42]The ideal reader will not simply interpret the person as being curt and everything being absolutely wrong. I can interpret it in that way, which is valid, which is legitimate. He can interpret it as simply getting tired of that argument. He can interpret it as simply wanting to put an end to the dialogue because he had something to do.

[00:22:05]This is something that commonly occurs in any type of exchange via WhatsApp.

[00:22:12]Today, in fact, digital communication is changing many interpretive rules.

[00:22:18]Here we are seeing how a simple sign like a period in a sentence opens up to multiple interpretations.

[00:22:26]Because of course, at a grammatical level, the period would simply mean that the sentence ends, but at a communicative level, at a linguistic level, at a symbolic level, and especially at a symbolic level, in a relationship where the context is different from other types of bonds such as friendships or family, the period, in and according to what is being spoken about in a certain context, drastically changes the multiple interpretations that are given.

[00:22:57]Okay, so as we're seeing, please let me know if you have any doubts, concerns, or questions up to this point. Let me know if you need anything.

[00:23:11]Humberto begins to understand that semiotics is the science of signs.

[00:23:16]Ultimately, what is being studied are the processes of signification, how a sign, anything you may believe or see, represents something to someone.

[00:23:34]What does a taunt represent? It is a sign, it is not only the consumption of herbs, it is also part of our Argentine tradition, it is also part of our own ritual, it is also part of sharing. It is not only something verbal, that is, the sign can be images, gestures, objects, media, words, drawings and all culture is permeated by signs.

[00:24:05]Every cultural phenomenon that includes art, religion, philosophy, science, advertising, and fashion, is a sign.

[00:24:16]And that's where the code comes in, which is that set of conventions that allow us to produce and understand signs.

[00:24:25]The other day I gave an example when I was with a friend, literally a friend so that this is not misinterpreted, in Chile, where at one point 15 years ago I gave her a hug and someone said to me, that is interpreted here as them already being boyfriend and girlfriend, not even polo because they are different categories in Chile. And suddenly, in other parts of the world with women, it can be seen as either very effeminate or the least expected of a man.

[00:24:59]Culture is permeated by signs, and the way we interpret them and the codes that establish those conventions.

[00:25:08]The codes establish those conventions of how such signs will or will not be interpreted. It establishes the codes, how the signs are organized and what they mean within a given community, but then comes the subjective interpretation as well because there is a plurality of meanings. We never have a completely closed meaning. There is never a completely closed meaning.

[00:25:37]We return to what we always say: language has a gray area and is ambiguous.

[00:25:43]Ambiguity is always present in language, always.

[00:25:49]So, it's a direct relationship here where not only cultural convention comes into play, but also the way in which the receiver interprets.

[00:26:17]the way in which the receiver interprets.

[00:26:20]The other dimension that constitutes the intellectual and academic trajectory of Humberto Eco is properly semiotics. Since 1975 ECO has held the chair of semiotics at the University of Bologna and from there he has written two essential books that develop his theory of signs and meaning. This is a treatise on general semiotics and what semiotics, philosophy, and language are.

[00:26:47]Although a theory of semiotics explicitly deals with a theory of codes and signs, its starting point is the concept of unlimited semiosis. And they take this from Pierce, whom I believe we have studied, if I'm not mistaken.

[00:27:02]If I'm not mistaken, I think we've studied it.

[00:27:06]Well, you'd have to check the list.

[00:27:10]Unlimited semiosis is in the hands of Humberto Eco to the type of intermediate position in relation to the reader's position. Although unlimited semiosis is a result of the fact that signs in language always refer to other signs and a text always offers infinite perspectives.

[00:27:30]Eco wants to avoid the extremes of univocal meaning on the one hand and infinite meanings on the other, which are equivocal. Of course, what Umberto Eco ultimately wants, so that they can understand, is to reject the concept of analogy from the so-called Middle Ages. He rejects the concept of analogy, but sees that in modernity two very clear types of language emerge. On the one hand, there is univocal language, where something always means only one thing and only that thing.

[00:28:05]For example, the famous concept of Mary, mother of God. So, in a one-sided view, he says, "No, God cannot have a mother."

[00:28:17]So if God doesn't have a mother because God is God, Mary cannot be a mother because Mary is a creature. They do not understand what analogy and participation are. Then they tell you, "Mary is not the mother of God."

[00:28:30]The concept of Mother of God is being misused.

[00:28:33]That is a one-sided view typical of modernity, but then we have an ambiguous view where anything is possible. For example, the very concept of being. There appears the ammonistic, pantheistic immanentism of the spiny baroque.

[00:28:48]Everything is God. God and venerates. If everything is present in God, then we are all God.

[00:28:53]Everything is God.

[00:28:59]So, Humberto is seeing that he is falling into those extremes.

[00:29:05]Humberto Eco is observing in his academic reading that ultimately, when he wants to address what unlimited semiosis is, he is looking for that point of equilibrium of not falling either into a strictly univocal reading or into a strictly equivocal reading.

[00:29:28]Well, the unlimited semiis corresponds rather to Pierce's interpreter in the sense in which the meaning is established by reference to the conditions of possibility. In other words, what does " condition of possibility" mean?

[00:29:48]If I say, "How beautiful that flame is." How beautiful that flame is.

[00:29:55]Good.

[00:30:01]If I say, "How beautiful that flame is, what are the conditions and possibilities?" I couldn't imagine he was referring to a book or a mate. Perhaps it refers to the fire, or perhaps it refers to the animal.

[00:30:17]So, I can't say there's a single vision, that is, it only refers to fire, because if I don't know the context, it's difficult to understand what references there are, because the signs are always referring, I do n't know what a comment from the Vatican has to do with it when I'm explaining something by Umberto Eco, but well, there's everything in this life.

[00:30:43]What I'm saying is, if I say how beautiful that flame is, it does n't mean I have infinite possibilities, that anything would be a flame.

[00:30:56]So, it would be a flame from a Van Gogh painting to the book, the supernatural order of Álvaro Calderón.

[00:31:05]Nor would it be a univocal term, because I don't know if the text is referring to it that way without seeing the context, what the isolated text is meaning to me, if it is referring to me or an animal or fire.

[00:31:21]Okay, assuming unlimited semiosis, how then does it explain echo?

[00:31:29]Nature is a code, and that's where the study of code comes in. In general terms, codes can be of two types. They can be of the unambiguous type, like Morse code, where a certain series of signals corresponds to a certain series, to a certain series of signs, in this case the alphabet letter. Morse code is a clearly unambiguous language, a sign, a reference.

[00:31:57]This type of code, in which one system of elements is translated into another system, has very broad applications, so that the relationship between DNA and RNA in biology can be analyzed as a code. For example, this is used a lot in biology. What is a univocal language is the ABC of biology, he found some knowledge in the matter.

[00:32:22]For example, the DNA code or the RNA code are precisely this: closed codes, unambiguous codes, where each element signifies a single, unambiguous reality.

[00:32:38]Well, although Humberto Eco offers several technical examples, because this is very typical of the technical languages ​​of this type of code, his main interest is the composite language, where we have that code in language, code is equivalent to grammar, syntax, system and what is the parrole, which is the act of speech.

[00:33:03]Here we will see that the code correlates the expression plane in the language with the content plane. What does this mean? Plane of expression and plane of content.

[00:33:23]Many examples come to mind. Perhaps it is simpler to understand it in a relationship of some intimacy with a friend, with a family member, with a partner. No, I think that's the simplest way to understand it, I think. I think so.

[00:33:41]Okay, I guess someone's asking me, "How are you?"

[00:33:48]And I say, "I'm fine like this. I'm okay.

[00:33:56]Most likely, if someone knows me, they know I'm not okay. Someone who doesn't know me thinks I'm just being polite and saying I'm fine. If I text like this, I'm fine, and a period at the end changes everything.

[00:34:19]So I write 'I'm fine' with three dots.

[00:34:23]Uh, leaving that suspense at the end.

[00:34:26]So I write 'I'm fine' and a smiley face emoji changes everything.

[00:34:34]It changes everything completely. And we're seeing that ultimately they're the same words, they're the same words, but what varies is precisely not that level of syntax, of grammar, of the system, but the act of language itself.

[00:35:00]I say the same words over and over again, and yet, notice that it doesn't work like, for example, in a technical biological language like DNA, because if I write the DNA code, any scientist takes it and arrives at the same conclusions. Now I say, 'No, I feel fine, I'm okay, chill.'

[00:35:25]And maybe for you I'm fine, so for this man It is completely destroyed because they understand the speech act, the act of language, in part what is the enunciation, not the utterance, that is, the context in which that dialogue takes place.

[00:35:42]That is why Umberto Eco uses the term S-code to designate a code employed in this sense. In other words, this code of language is equivalent to the specific organization of the elements of speech, which are the acts of language, where one must also consider the context, the intentions, what underlies it. Without a code, sound and graphic markers have no meaning. The word "hello" is nothing, it is a sound, but it means a great deal, like a greeting, for example.

[00:36:17]So, without the interpretive code, sound and graphic markers lack meaning in the most radical sense that they do not function from a linguistic point of view. S-codes can be denotative when a statement is interpreted literally or connotative when another code is detected within that same statement.

[00:36:41]None of this is really foreign to Sosur's work, but he wants to introduce a Eco's interpretation of the S-code is more dynamic than that found in Sureor's theory and much of current linguistics. To this end, he develops what he calls, following Kilian, a Q-model, the code model that explains unlimited semiosis.

[00:37:07]Eco must demonstrate that the meaning of a sign vehicle is independent of a supposedly real object. In other words, it is necessary to avoid the fallacy of the referent. Thus, the sign vehicle "dog" is not equivalent to any particular dog, which is the real object.

[00:37:28]Think of an example, right? Who here has a pet? Okay.

[00:37:34]Who here has a pet? A dog, right? A dog.

[00:37:47]And for those asking, we're talking about semiotics. In fact, Umberto Eco is properly the intellectual of semiotics, or the intellectual who works most with semiotics. Okay.

[00:38:04]If I say the word "dog," I 'm not referring to the dog that each of you has in a particular way. That is, let's say you have, I don't know, Freya, Betún, or Fidul, I'm not referring to the dog. particular to each one.

[00:38:26]When I talk about a dog, I'm doing so.

[00:38:34]When I talk about a dog, I'm referring precisely to a representation of all dogs, including the living, the dead, and the imaginary.

[00:38:49]A clearer example, perhaps, is the fact that "however" doesn't have a referent. When I use the word " however," what is the referent? What we're saying is that signs don't have a correlation with the real world.

[00:39:04]I know it's difficult to understand because we normally speak thinking we're referring to reality.

[00:39:12]We normally think we're referring to reality.

[00:39:16]I ask you, what is the referent of " dog"?

[00:39:19]Real, real.

[00:39:22]If I say dogs are canines, what is the real referent? There are multiple dogs that haven't existed yet, that have existed, that have ceased to exist, that currently exist, and that I don't know.

[00:39:38]So, you're going to say, "The dog is a concrete meaning." Well, what is meaning? A language system.

[00:39:44]Where is the link? What is the vehicle with reality?

[00:39:48]What is the vehicle between language and reality?

[00:39:52]Think about it for Just a moment, because afterwards—and this is what I always see—many people come out to bastardize, with or without justification, progressivism and inclusive language, until a well-prepared person touches them and says, "Explain to me what the vehicle is that connects language with reality."

[00:40:16]You take scientists who do science and you ask, "What is the vehicle that links that system of alphanumeric codes on your blackboard with the reality of that little plant or that little rat you 're dissecting right now?"

[00:40:34]And what I'm seeing now happens: a dreadful silence. That's why I've always said, never underestimate any author.

[00:40:44]Someone tells me about a point of reference.

[00:40:46]What is the point of reference?

[00:40:49]Look here at the answer they give me live. A point of reference.

[00:40:55]What is the point of reference of the word of words, however? Of the word "but."

[00:41:04]Of the word "maybe," "perhaps." " Maybe, " what is the point of reference? And we're going to see how the fact that "however" doesn't have a The reference point is purely a product of the code.

[00:41:27]Secondly, Umberto Eco recognizes that codes have a context.

[00:41:32]This context is social and cultural life. Codes cannot exist without culture. That's why even language itself, like Spanish or English, drastically changes the way we interpret reality. A crucial example is Heidegger. If Heidegger had spoken Spanish, it's doubtful he would have written his works because we Spanish speakers can distinguish between "ser" and "estar." It's not the same to say " estoy feliz" as "soy feliz." " Ser" and "estar" are two very different concepts, which, however, in Germanic or Anglo-Saxon languages— for example, in Anglo-Saxon, the notion of "to be"—this distinction between being and being is not made, and that greatly changes the way we interpret reality.

[00:42:27]Today I've been reading; I have my George R.R. Martin book, *A Game of Thrones*, here. I still have the first book.

[00:42:35]There's a very interesting part about when Daenerys Targaryen receives a beautiful steed as a wedding gift.

[00:42:45]Daenerys asks, "How can I thank Drogo for the gift?"

[00:42:54]George Bormont tells her... Our language, in the language of the Calabrian people, is " thank you."

[00:43:04]So, gratitude, which for a Christian is a fundamental virtue, and for every person, well, gratitude is a fundamental virtue. Notice that it's a virtue that can't be expressed because the word "thank you" doesn't exist, and suddenly that fundamental virtue in one culture disappears in another culture because it doesn't have a system of codes that allows it to be expressed. So, a part of reality disappears because it has no relation to language.

[00:43:44]Therein lies the importance of language.

[00:43:45]Ultimately, therein lies the importance of language. Well, cultural units are signs that social life has placed at our disposal: images that interpret, books that interpret appropriate answers, that interpret ambiguous questions, that interpret definitions, and vice versa. Also, what someone does in relation to a specific sign, like, for example, your shout in Australia, causes someone to buy everyone drinks. This is what culture gives us information about the cultural unit involved, like when we say, for example, "cheers"—these are cultural signs. Consequently, considering the condition of the sign as a cultural unit, a theory that codes are capable of explaining what Signs can assume multiple meanings, derived from the user's level of competence in interpreting the language.

[00:45:06]Language as a code becomes equivalent to the user's competence. This occurs even when a speaker uses a code incompetently, because incompetence is also interesting to semiotics. What is right or wrong?

[00:45:29]What is correct or incorrect in speech?

[00:45:33]Laughter is one possible response to such incompetence. Laughter that must be excluded from the notion of language as a semantics based on the truth value of propositions. Laughter, lies, and tragedy are fundamental to understanding the code from a semiotic point of view. For example, who would laugh at a funeral? Do you want a simple example? What if you start telling jokes at a funeral?

[00:46:02]The question would be, why is telling jokes wrong in reality?

[00:46:08]Because there is an entire cultural system where language, as a symbolic field, dictates that you cannot laugh at a funeral. Now, the most interesting thing is that everyone has been to a funeral at some point in their life, and everyone has made a joke about death at some point in their life. And the most interesting thing is that they laugh before or after the funeral. What's the difference between laughing tomorrow and laughing today?

[00:46:39]They realized that these are simply conventions, and as conventions, they can vary.

[00:46:46]There isn't a single, unambiguous code like there might be in biology.

[00:46:50]In biology, there will be a single, unambiguous code. In culture, there isn't.

[00:46:54]The semantic field is enveloped in multiple twists and turns that make the concept of a code as equivalent to the elements of systems insufficient. In fact, as Umberto Eco states, every large linguistic code is a complex network of subcodes. To put it simply, Umberto Eco's Q model is a model of linguistic creativity, and it confirms the following.

[00:47:21]Indeed, the Q model assumes a system that can be fed with fresh information and that can infer new data from incomplete information using the Q model. Therefore, the code is modified. according to the varying competencies of language users instead of being determined by the code itself.

[00:47:42]And another aspect of code theory is the theory of sign formation, which is what we'll conclude with today. In his study of this issue, Umberto Eco again focuses on the tension between elements that can be easily assimilated or anticipated by codes and those that cannot be assimilated so easily.

[00:48:08]Eco designates the elements of the first category as ratio facilis and the second category as ratio diffiis.

[00:48:16]The closer we get to ratio diffiis, the more the sign of the object is motivated by the object itself.

[00:48:25]Icons are the categories of signs that express this most clearly.

[00:48:29]However, Umberto Eco is interested in demonstrating that even the most motivated signs, for example, the image of the Virgin Mary, possess conventional elements.

[00:48:41]In fact, you notice how they don't portray Jesus Christ; he doesn't have the appearance of a Semite.

[00:48:48]Excuse me for using such terms, but it's necessary.

[00:48:52]You can agree, can't you? And I accept the Criticisms, but you see an image of the Virgin Mary or Jesus Christ and many of them are very Westernized.

[00:49:09]In fact, I have an image that was given to me by an Orthodox group. I do n't know if it will be seen here or not. Well, I live far from the library and there is n't a certain correspondence.

[00:49:28]And even when there is apparently a clear case of an object or behavior that seems to exist outside of all conventional formats, beyond the code, such examples quickly become conventional. The most significant examples are those mentioned by Gombridge, who advocated for realism in paintings during various periods of art history.

[00:49:51]You can even prove that a photograph has conventional aspects. For example, negative development offers the possibility of a certain conventional touch on the part of the photographer. But if you consider photography from the perspective of its analog condition, Umberto Eco reminds us that digitization as a specific form of encoding implies new possibilities for reproduction. So I was taking a couple of photos in the park and, even though I know it as an experiment, as a photograph that is supposed to portray a reality, that is, there wouldn't be a certain convention. There wouldn't be a certain convention.

[00:50:29]However, from the right angle, A photograph taken at the right angle generates a dimension of aesthetics and beauty, and even of power, for the person photographed, even creativity or belonging.

[00:50:50]Certain angles—I don't want to go into irrelevant details— certain angles with their interplay of light and distance, change the way you interpret that image.

[00:51:04]In short, the essential elements of the typology of sign-making models, according to Eco, are as follows: First, physical labor, which is the effort necessary to create the sign. Second, recognition, because the object or event is recognized as an expression of the content of a sign, as in the case of traces, symptoms, or clues.

[00:51:26]Third, ostentation. It is demonstrated that an object or act is representative within the class of object or acts. Fourth, replication. It tends, in principle, toward difficult ratios, but assumes coding features through stylization. Examples include emblems, musical notation, and mathematical symbols. Fifth, invention. The most crucial case of difficult ratios. The existing code does not foresee them. It is the basis of a new material continuum.

[00:51:59]What this proposes is a convenient vert in its Q model. And the invention of sign theory stems from the need to explain the linguistic system's capacity for renewal and revitalization, how language is always universal yet dynamic, constantly changing. Eco asserts that the system of signs, instead of being closed and static, is open and dynamic.

[00:52:25]A comparable motivation is observed in Eco's examination of signs and meaning in semiotics, philosophy, and language. Eco maintains that a sign is not merely something that represents something else, but rather that it must be interpreted. As we observed above, the concept of interpretation at work here is Peirce's interpreter, which generates unlimited possibilities.

[00:52:50]Well, that's what we have to explain today. Okay, John Leche. I found the author extremely interesting. I'm fascinated by Umberto Eco, since I don't agree with what he says in many cases. Obviously, the constant criticism of the Church, but oh well, this broken clock strikes twice a day. Dear friends, that's all for today. I love you all very much. Thank you for joining me, thank you for being here. Oh, and thank you to everyone who supports us. So that we can keep going.

[00:53:19]Sometimes with a donation, sometimes with a Super Chat. All of this allows us to continue offering these free courses. Therefore, a big thank you to Mariana Torri, who constantly helps us outside of YouTube. Thank you so much from the bottom of my heart. Many thanks to Matías Jacobero as well. And well, we'll see each other next Monday on this channel, God willing, to continue with this course that we're about to finish, in fact. So, blessings to all. Bye, bye. Goodbye.

[00:53:58]With his brother, he is [music] dismantling.

[00:54:02]Against whom is that doctrine expanding its narrative? [music] Those poor little ones who are always shouting, but he disarms them immediately with arguments. With common sense [music] always on his side.

[00:54:19]Family and the natural order, with [music] philosophies as weapon and ally, he exposes the lies of the immoral agenda. [music] The professor never gives up in his lectures, depending on the [music] truth and Peace. You'll get sharp arguments from him [music] against the whiners and the liars. He always speaks [music] of true justice because he understands that it is one and not fleeting. Without mincing words, without censorship [music] or brakes, the race goes on. You break through without problems sharing his ideas. [music] A lot of philosophy every time he speaks to you.

[00:55:08]Every phrase something word for word. He despises, [music] lies, truth, and nonsense.

[00:55:16]And so, with the truth, traps are always disarmed.

[00:55:20]The [music] lawyer never gives up in his videos defending [music] truth and peace. You'll get sharp arguments from him [music] against the whiners and the liars.

[00:55:50][music] Against the whiners and the liars. The lawyer never gives up.

[00:55:58]In his videos defending [music] truth and peace.

[00:56:02]Sharp arguments from him. You'll get [music] against the Crybabies and liars.

[00:56:12][music] [music]