A Word Isn't an Object (Ch 2)

The word isn't the object. This is a weird concept, but a true one. Ever since we are little we are taught to make objects and their names interchangeable. Words make no sense unless they are standing in the place of some grander thing, either an object or an idea. The truth is though that not only are words not just the naming of objects but words are a way to explain things that are abstract. The more I look at semiotics, the more I appreciate the human mind. We can learn so much, and so many concepts that aren't concrete. We are taught at a young age to accept things that we can't see or even understand that well.
One of the main things that is pointed out in this chapter is that basically everything seems to be representing something else. Like the idea of the painting of the pipe and and the words "This is not a pipe" under it. Although the word pipe paints a picture of the object pipe in your head the word doesn't make the thing a pipe. The word is not a pipe but also the painting itself is not a pipe. I still have a hard time wrapping my brain around this idea because for so long I've been taught that really all of these things (the word, the picture, and the object) are interchangeable, granted you can't smoke a picture or a word, but they all have the same connotation although different values. Chapter 2 points out though that this is a mistake. Even if the signifier is realistic it cannot be mistaken for the signified. Only when we separate all of the signifiers from the signifieds can we truly understand the meanings of, well, anything.

It's all a bit arbitrary if I do say so myself (Ch 1)

I was glad to see that this first chapter did explain things a lot better than the introduction, although I was a little disappointed how inconsistent the whole idea of semiotics is. Throughout the chapter it continually reminded the reader of how arbitrary the study of semiotics is, in fact the use of the word arbitrary drove me to distraction at times, they could have at least used some synonyms.
The idea that each sign must have both a signified and a signifier to be a sign makes sense. It's amazing to think that our minds create meaning in everything; we can learn a word and the concept that is behind that word. Only with this knowledge can we speak fluently in a language. The other thing that is amazing to me, is how the signified and signifier have nothing in common with each other except that someone somewhere decided to join those two things together. The tradition of words is the only thing that has created the meanings of our language, so each language has a different way of categorizing itself. That means people have to agree on the meanings and be willing to use them in the right manner. I have witnessed people using words either out of context or that they don't know the meaning. This can create confusion and teach others to use a word in an improper place, or with the wrong meaning. The question is, is it this very thing that creates dual meanings to words? Can someone who creates their own meaning of a known word, if they get enough people to agree with them on their meaning change the language they speak?

The Study of Signs (Intro)

This introduction was dense to say the least. I'm really hoping that the other chapters are more clear and to the point. There seems to be no easy explanation of semiotics. There are as many definitions as there are those who study semiotics. There are also countless signs to study, but all seem to agree that language is important. The hardest thing about language is it's constantly changing, also there are so many different languages.
To use semiotics as a theory of literature one must distinguish signs within the text. Finding meanings and things that represent something greater than what they seem to be is important when reading a text. Not mention it's fun finding hidden meanings that sometimes the author doesn't even realize are there.
Like I said before I'm hoping that with the next chapters everything will become clearer.