That was a fascinating analysis, although I think it falls into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity – Sapir–Whorf hypothesis as it were.
It’s likely there’s some truth in there somewhat but to say that the popcorn of today was buried in the kernels of yesterday still strikes me as a gross oversimplification.
Rather than Semiotics specifically, I’d credit allegory and metaphor as greater transmitters of sensemaking, each which require a cultural understanding that is NOT within the text itself.
Fundamentalism _is_ a problem however, because it tries to strip away the context from the text. “Back to basics” movements are usually nothing but trouble, wherever in history they’re found and by whomever.
In short, nice analysis, but I don’t buy it just yet.
Thank you. It’s a personal preference mind you. Tracing routes through history it seems that anytime somebody “breaks away” from the surrounding culture and decides:
We’re going back to the book, sticking to fundamentals, and being strictly adherent to definitions within the text…
… it leads to problems.
That’s not to say it’s not _useful_ to go “back to basics”, but when you focus on the text alone and the definitions within alone, it can be problematic when taken too far.
The “text alone” I’d trace back culturally to Protestant Reformation thinking, and this style of linguistics, including semiotics has its ultimate basis in that way of thinking.