Transsemiotic

If, in other words, the achievements of nonaesthetic discourses could be conceived of in terms of a reason detached from language, they would in fact be resistant to aesthetic negativity: as transsemiotic, they would escape aesthetic negativity, since the latter starts with the understanding of semiotically constituted representations, which it interminably defers.

The conceptual integration is constituted through the transsemiotic integration of iconic, indexical and symbolic signs to complex symbolic media offers that defy to be classified solely as icons, indices or symbols, but rather establish an emergent semiotic model that encompasses all three aspects of the sign. These transsemiotic semiotic units are designed by cultural codes and refer in multi-faceted intertextual relations to both the integrated semiotic models themselves as well as to sociocultural discourse on the aesthetic implementation of iconic devices.

However, with a Deleuzian transsemiotic approach the otherwise prescriptive technicalities of cognitivist structuring can be critically engaged, so as to examine the hierarchies and forces implied in those relationships and image-orders.

He writes that “diagrammaticism brings into play more or less deterritorialized transsemiotic forces, systems of signs, of code, of catalysts and so on, that make it possible in various specific ways to cut across stratifications of every kind” (Guattari 1984, 145). Here the “transsemiotic forces” include mathematical formulae and operations (such as the banking system of Renaissance Venice, Pisa, and Genoa). They are transsemiotic because they are not tethered by the signifying processes that code experience or speaking positions according to given stratifications such as class, gender, nation, and so forth.