Kultuuritüpoloogiast

Kultuuritüpoloogiast

Juri Lotman - Kultuuritüpoloogiast. Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus, 2010. 184 lk

Hea meel üle pika aja taas lugeda paberist, tindist ja armastusest raamatut, mitte PDF faile oma tolmuselt arvutiekraanilt. Käesolev on ka tohutu sümboolse väärtusega - keeletoimetajaks on raamatukogutädi Eva Lepik, eessõna on kirjutanud semiootika osakonna praegune juhataja Peeter Torop ja üks tõlkidest, toimetaja ning ühtlasi järelsõna autor on semiootika lektor Silvi Salupere. Arvatavasti just selle tõttu, et see on värskelt ilmunud, pärineb sellest ka mitu seminariteksti Juri Lotmani ja Tartu-Moskva koolkonna aines.
Valdav enamus teosest on kogutud artiklid, mis puudutavad kultuuritüpoloogiat. Salupere järelsõnas on need kokku võetud neli kultuurikoodi:

Semantiline (sümboliline) kultuurikood. Mitte-tekst, oluline on sõna ("Alguses oli sõna"). Liikumine tõe poole ei ole mitte liikumine ühelt märgilt teisele, vaid märgisse süvenemine. Ajamõõde ei ole siin oluline. Näitena toob Lotman varajase keskaja.
Süntaktiline kultuurikood. Tekst (muusikalis-arhitektuuriline). Valitseb progressi mõiste, oluline on vana ja uue vastandus. Peeter I aeg oma reformidega, barokk.
Asemantiline ja asüntaktiline. Kultuurikood eitab märgilisust. Mitte-tekst, mitte-sõna. Vastandatakse loomulik (looduslik) ja mitteloomulik. Reaalne on asjade maailm, seevastu märkide, sotsiaalsete suhete maailm on valeliku tsivilisatsiooni sünnitis. Näitena tuuakse Valgustusaeg, eriti rousseau'lik maailmavaade.
Semantilis-süntaktiline kultuurikood. Tekst (sõnaline). XIX saj algus.

Teine osa on "Kahest kommunikatsioonimudelist kultuuri süsteemis", milles ta võtab ette Jakobsoni mudeli ja teeb sellest kaks mudelit: MINA-TEMA ja MINA-MINA. Siin selgitab ta põhjalikumalt kuidas kultuuris toimib autokommunikatsioon. Pean praegu oluliseks tuua välja nüanss, et sama õpetust või salajasi koode jagav kogukond on kollektiivselt MINA. See tähelepanek võib aidata autokommunikatsiooni seostada nii sotsiosemiootika (Randviir) kui ka diskursuseteooritega (Foucault). Olen kindel, et loen seda veel kordi.

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Real understanding of any scientific subject must include some knowledge of its historical growth; we cannot comprehend and accept modern concepts and theories without knowing something of their origins - of how we have got where we are. Neglect of this maxim can lead to that unfortunate state of mind which regard the science of the day as finality. (Cherry 1977: 32)

We should temper reading by writing, and reciprocally, so that the written composition gives body (corpus) to what has been obtained by reading. Reading collects orationes logoi (discourses, elements of discourse); we must make a corpus of them. (Foucault 2005: 359)

The existence of the inner book, along with unreading or forgetting, is what makes the way we discuss books so discontinuous and heterogeneous. What we take to be the books we have read is in fact an anomalous accumulation of fragments of texts, reworked by our imagination and unrelated to the books of others, even if these books are materially identical to ones we have held in our hands. (Bayard 2007: 85-86)

The post-Cubist function of quotations in collages emerges with particular clarity in the early notes of Eisenstein, who wrote in 1928 that "an entire treatise can be made by composition of quotations." In his later works, in which compositions of quotations are often used, he himself explains them (in the spirit of the "linear style" of quotations) by a desire for "minimal distortion." (Ivanov 1976b: 323)

A person may be interested in scientific statements for their own sake (interested in collecting them as a person may be interested in collecting butterflies); a person may have knowledge and the increase of knowledge as his goal. (Morris 1949: 128)

In non-literate society, of course, there are usually some individuals whose interests lead them to collect, analyse and interpret the cultural tradition in a personal way [but] it is still evident that the literate individual has in practice so large a field of personal selection from the total cultural repertoire that the odds are strongly against his experiencing the cultural tradition as any sort of patterned whole. (Goody & Watt 1963: 335)

A different language is too often taken for stammering, a nonconformist virtuosity is misinterpreted as formlessness, exquisite variability is confused with cruelty, intentional enigmatic indefiniteness is deplored as the disappointing obscurity or fragmentariness of a mere neglected sketch, and in the stupendous interplay of symmetry and disequilibrium onesided critics are prone to overlook the harmony and to observe nothing but chaos. (Jakobson 1981[1967b]: 498)

I am convinced that there must still be a number of other concepts or models of potentially systemic generality scattered in some (un)fairly unknown works of disappeared or living researchers. We should dive for them in the deeps of literature. (François 1999: 217)

The selections included are of such a nature that readers who feel that the study of the history of systematic social theory is a waste of time will have occasion to ponder how thoroughly our predecessors have plagiarized many of our best ideas. (Meyer 1956: 166)

This, we may conceive, would be no small Advantage to the Knowledge of a thinking Man, if all his past Thoughts and Reasonings could be always present to him. (Locke 1741a: 115)

blogger visitor counter