Abstract
In this reflection I would like to consider some effects of selected semiologic and semiotic perspectives on persuasion and subjectivity interconnected to general semiotics and theoretical rhetorics. I will argue that there are two possible ways how to "unravel the tangled skein" of some of these interconnections (between semiotic and rhetorical structure of the subject).
We can find them inside two basic paradigms of semiotics: first (i) in semiology and (mostly Foucauldian) structuralism and the second (ii) in (mostly Peircean) semiotic. These two methodological viewpoints take as their point of departure general relation which is sign, but in completely different manner: as (i) dyadic relation of two ideas and as (ii) triadic relation of object, sign and idea which is by this sign determined.
First perspective emphasizes the socio-cultural construction of subject and is rooted in the view of sign as language/system unit, second one emphasizes the necessary effects of "reality" in the actions and productions of signs. Despite the impossibility of translation between structuralism and semiotic, these two standpoints has in common the desubjectification of self and I would like to explore some consequences of this challenging schism.