place 33-51

This chunk of reading talked a a lot about the structure of place. It kind of looked at it from the chicken/egg perspective, the people exist within these structures like languages and cities but we create the structures in the first place. It touched on the concept of free will and how we could just be something out of context, like speak our own language but it wouldn't mean anything to anyone else. Then he talked about globalization was destroying the concept of place because place becomes irrelevant. He talks about how things used to be imported and exported and systems of trade where people were conscious of what was going on and now we dont think of where things even come from. 

place 12-33

This reading basically showed that there is no good way to define place or what place could possibly mean. The possible definitions of place are all flawed, like location coordinates cannot always work because some places move. There is really no good solid way of giving people a place because it means so many things. The rest of the chapter was about how race affects place.

place p1-12

The beginning of the book Place I took as a basic rundown to how our interpretation of the word place integrates many different factors. It talks about how we cannot even conceive a definition of the word place because it can mean so many different things at the same time. I found the whole point of the argument to be kind of pointless because its just saying the word place is vague and can mean of lot of things, but that can be said for tons of other words. It's kind of just arguing semantics. I get what he is saying but it's just stating a bunch of things that are obvious. I did think the part about how the World Trade Centers are different then their specific longitude and latitude, it was an interesting idea how we think about the same spot as a bunch of different things at the same time.

another first reading

The reading "semiotics for beginners" seems to focus more on the connotation that a certain sign might be in. it emphasizes the perspective of the viewer, and the personal history of the signifier. It is really up to the signifier to give meaning to the signified, and that many times the sign can mean many different things at the same time or even many different thing to many different signifiers at the same time.

first readings

on the reading about signs "Chandlers signs", I think that it is an incredibly long and wordy explanation for something that could be explained much quicker. What this really boils down to is that it takes a common shared bond between 2 or more people to express an idea or sign commonly. It takes some prior knowledge of the subject to interpret a sign correctly. One person can say a word and it takes someone else to receive that word and interpret that word how they may choose. While this paper goes into the very finalities of the subject, I think a lot of the reading just went in circles repeating itself.