Changes

There are moments in the development of an analytic discussion when a thing initially described as a single object under a single sign needs to be reformulated as a congeries extending over more determinate objects.  If the usage of the original singular sign is preserved, as it often is, then the multitude of new instances that one comes to fathom beneath the old object's superficial appearance gradually serve to reconstitute the singular sign's denotation in the fashion of a plural reference.

There are moments in the development of an analytic discussion when a thing initially described as a single object under a single sign needs to be reformulated as a congeries extending over more determinate objects.  If the usage of the original singular sign is preserved, as it often is, then the multitude of new instances that one comes to fathom beneath the old object's superficial appearance gradually serve to reconstitute the singular sign's denotation in the fashion of a plural reference.

One such moment was reached in the preceding subsection, where the topics opened up by indexical signs invited the discussion to begin addressing much wider areas of concern.  Eventually, to account for the effective operation of indexical signs I will have to invoke the concept of a ''real object'' and pursue the analysis of ostensible objects in terms of still more objective things.  These are the extended multitudes of increasingly determinate objects that I will variously refer to as the actualizations, instantiations, realizations, etc. of objects, and on occasion (and not without reason) the ''objects of objects'' (OOO's).

One such moment was reached in the preceding subsection, where the topics opened up by indexical signs invited the discussion to begin addressing much wider areas of concern.  Eventually, to account for the effective operation of indexical signs I will have to invoke the concept of a ''real object'' and pursue the analysis of ostensible objects in terms of still more objective things.  These are the extended multitudes of increasingly determinate objects that I will variously refer to as the actualizations, instantiations, realizations, etc. of objects, and on occasion (and not without reason) the ''objects of objects''.

Another such moment will arrive when I turn to developing suitable embodiments of sign relations within dynamically realistic systems.  In order to implement interpreters as state transition systems, I will have to justify the idea that dynamic states are the ''real signs'' and proceed to reconstitute the customary types of signs as abstractions from still more significant tokens.  These are the immediate occasions of sign-using transactions that I will tender as ''situations of use'' (SOU's) or ''instances of use'' (IOU's), plus the states and motions of dynamic systems that solely are able to realize these uses and discharge the obligations they incur to reality.

Another such moment will arrive when I turn to developing suitable embodiments of sign relations within dynamically realistic systems.  In order to implement interpreters as state transition systems, I will have to justify the idea that dynamic states are the ''real signs'' and proceed to reconstitute the customary types of signs as abstractions from still more significant tokens.  These are the immediate occasions of sign-using transactions that I will tender as ''situations of use'' (SOUs) or ''instances of use'' (IOUs), plus the states and motions of dynamic systems that solely are able to realize these uses and discharge the obligations they incur to reality.

In every case, working within the framework of systems theory will lead this discussion toward systems and conditions of systems as the ultimate objects of investigation, implicated as the ends of both synthetic and analytic proceedings.  Sign relations, initially formulated as relations among three arbitrary sets, will gradually have their original substrates replaced with three systems, the object, sign, and interpretant systems.

In every case, working within the framework of systems theory will lead this discussion toward systems and conditions of systems as the ultimate objects of investigation, implicated as the ends of both synthetic and analytic proceedings.  Sign relations, initially formulated as relations among three arbitrary sets, will gradually have their original substrates replaced with three systems, the object, sign, and interpretant systems.

Since the roles of a sign relation are formally and pragmatically defined, they do not depend on the material aspects or the essential attributes of elements or domains.  Therefore, it is conceivable that the very same system could appear in all three roles, and from this possibility arises much of the ensuing complications of the subject.

Since the roles of a sign relation are formally and pragmatically defined, they do not depend on the material aspects or the essential attributes of elements or domains.  Therefore, it is conceivable that the very same system could appear in all three roles, and from this possibility arises much of the ensuing complications of the subject.

A related source of conceptual turbulence stems from the circumstance that, even though a certain aesthetic dynamics attracts the mind toward sign relational systems that are capable of reflecting on, commenting on, and thus ''counter-rolling'' their own behavior, it is still important to distinguish in every active instance the part of the system that is doing the discussing from the part of the system that is being discussed.  To do this, interpreters need two things:  (1) the senses to discern the essential tensions that typically prevail between the formal pole and the informal arena, and (2) the language to articulate, aside from their potential roles, the moment by moment placement of dynamic elements and systematic components with respect to this field of polarities.

A related source of conceptual turbulence stems from the circumstance that, even though a certain aesthetic dynamics attracts the mind toward sign relational systems that are capable of reflecting on, commenting on, and thus ''counter-rolling'' their own behavior, it is still important to distinguish in every active instance the part of the system that is doing the discussing from the part of the system that is being discussed.  To do this, interpreters need two things:  the senses to discern the essential tensions that typically prevail between the formal pole and the informal arena, and (2) the language to articulate, aside from their potential roles, the moment by moment placement of dynamic elements and systematic components with respect to this field of polarities.

=====1.3.4.11. Review and Prospect=====

=====1.3.4.11. Review and Prospect=====