FOaM

Fashion, Objectivity and Mythology.

Roland Barthes was born in Cherbough, Manche, Lower Normandy, France
He is a semiotician
He studies semiotics
Semiotics is the studies of signs and their interpretation
Signs are a combination of the signifier and the signified
He died in Paris in 1980
He was run over by a milk truck.


Language is the grander structure; a tool of human communication. Speech is individual; it is written, spoken, screamed, etc.

Signs, as I mentioned, are the relationship between the signifier (Sr) and the signified (Sd):
Sr / Sd

In my previous post, I described physical appearance (primarily, my clothing) from third person (limited) and first person perspectives; but in describing myself in the third person, I wondered: can anyone ever be objective? About anything? I look at myself in the mirror, and I describe my appearance based on how I would describe someone else, but I can only describe anyone, anything, anywhere, the world at large, in one way: as I see it. And I see it from my own unique perspective on the world, based on my worldview, my past and present experiences, thoughts, observations. Even in describing something as simple as an outfit, can anyone be objective? Get outside themselves and speak? I don't think so. Because if you are not speaking as yourself, not thinking as yourself, not describing acting feeling as yourself, who are you? Who are you impersonating if none of us can get escape ourselves? I experience through the lens of my worldview; so do you, so does your mother, your brother, your sister, your friend, your boss and your gardener. So if I am attempting to be objective and get away from myself, to view the world without bias or pretension, exactly whose worldview am I assuming?

In discussing research: how does ones provide objective (or authentic/impartial) data? If authenticity is allowing that which you are speaking about, to speak for itself as much as possible; it grants integrity. How does authenticity (objectivity) apply to the interpretation/inference of data? If viewing authenticity as an extension or component and integrity, which implies ethics, then it can be, at the very least, suggested. However, if you try and remove integrity, ethics and morality, you are left with two seemingly separate worlds; authentic and impartial data collection may imply but does not propose or create authentic or impartial results. This is the nature of interpretation.