Lo status semiosico dei fenomeni speculari / On the semiosic status of mirror phenomena
AbstractUmberto Eco (1975; 1985) has invariantly maintained that specular images have no semiosic status, basically because they stand in front rather than instead of an object. In his Kant and the Platypus (1997), Eco returns offering reasons to exclude specular images from signs, and definitely classifies mirrors as visual prosthetic devices. In this paper I argue that Eco is partly right and partly wrong. He is right inasmuch as he claims that seeing an object in a mirror must count as a case of seeing that object rather than as a case of seeing a sign of that object (or, a sign standing for a propositional content about that object). The only reason why we should agree with Eco on this point, however, is that otherwise we would be forced to admit that also when we see the object in normal visual perception, with no mirror involved, what we really see is a sign. But then Eco is wrong because he does not acknowledge that, although mirror phenomena do have no semiosic status per se, they may acquire it by taking advantage of independent sign-functions – thus coming to be part of what I call parasiticly semiosic phenomena. Specifically, since an object that is visually perceived in a mirror may appear to have some spatial or topological properties that the real object does not possess, it is sufficient for the mirror phenomenon to exploit an independent sign-function whose expressions admit spatial or topological properties among their distinctive traits in order for it to become fully (though parasiticly) semiosic.
ARMSTRONG, D.M. (1968), A materialist theory of the mind, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
BACCHINI, Fabio (1995), «Riflessioni sugli specchi» in Il Cannocchiale, n. 3, pp. 211-224.
BACCHINI, Fabio (2017), «The persistence of buildings and the context problem», in Footprint. Delft Architecture Theory Journal, n. 20, pp. 17-36.
BONFANTINI, Massimo A. & PRONI, Giampaolo (1980), «To guess or not to guess?» in Scienze Umane, n. 6, pp. 249-265; ora in ECO, U. & SEBEOK, T., eds. (1983), The sign of the three, Indiana University Press, Bloomington (Il segno dei tre, tr. it., Bompiani, Milano, 1983, pp. 137-155).
BYRNE, Alex (2001), «Intentionalism defended», in Philosophical Review, n. 110, pp. 199-240.
DE BERNARDIS, Mattia (2008), La questione percettiva in semiotica, tesi di dotto-rato, Università degli Studi di Bologna.
ECO, Umberto (1968), La struttura assente, Bompiani, Milano.
ECO, Umberto (1975a), Trattato di semiotica generale, Bompiani, Milano.
ECO, Umberto (1975b), Chi ha paura del cannocchiale?, in Op. Cit., n. 32, pp. 5-32.
ECO, Umberto (1985), Sugli specchi, in ECO, Umberto, Sugli specchi e altri saggi, Bompiani, Milano.
ECO, Umberto (1997), Kant e l’ornitorinco, Bompiani, Milano.
FABBRI, Paolo (2002), Jeux de miroirs : un rétroviseur sur la sémiotique, in MU-SARRA, Franco et al., eds., Eco in fabula. Umberto Eco nelle scienze umane, Leu-ven University Press, Leuven & Cesati, Firenze, pp. 45-55.
FOSTER, John (2000), The nature of perception, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
LOWE, Jonathan (1992), Experience and its objects, in CRANE, Tim, ed. (1992), The contents of experience, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
MALDONADO, Tomás (1974), Appunti sull’iconicità, in MALDONADO, Tomás, Avanguardia e razionalità, Einaudi, Torino.
MARTIN, Michael G.F. (2002), «The transparency of experience», in Mind and Language, n. 17, pp. 376-425.
PEIRCE, Charles Sanders (1934-48), Collected papers, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
SIEGEL, Susanna (2010), The contents of visual experience, Oxford University Press, New York.
SNOWDON, Paul F. (1990), «The objects of perceptual experience», in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, supplementary volume, n. 64, pp. 121-150.
SONESSON, Göran (2003), «Why the mirror is a sign – and why the television pic-ture is no mirror. Two episodes in the critique of the iconicity critique», in Proceed-ings of the 5th International Interdisciplinary Symposium of the Austrian Society for Semiotic Studies, S: European Journal for Semiotic Studies, n. 15:2-4, pp. 217-232.
TYE, Michael (1995), Ten problems of consciousness, MIT Press, Cambridge
Works published in RIFL are released under Creative Commons Licence:Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.