Changes

In accounting for the special characters of icons and indices that arose in previous discussions, it was necessary to open the domain of objects coming under formal consideration to include unspecified numbers of properties and instances of whatever objects were initially set down.  This is a general phenomenon, affecting every motion toward explanation whether pursued by analytic or synthetic means.  What it calls for in practice is a way of organizing growing domains of objects, without having to specify in advance all the objects there are.

In accounting for the special characters of icons and indices that arose in previous discussions, it was necessary to open the domain of objects coming under formal consideration to include unspecified numbers of properties and instances of whatever objects were initially set down.  This is a general phenomenon, affecting every motion toward explanation whether pursued by analytic or synthetic means.  What it calls for in practice is a way of organizing growing domains of objects, without having to specify in advance all the objects there are.

This subsection presents the ''objective project'' (OP) that I plan to take up for investigating the forms of sign relations, and it outlines three ''objective levels'' (OL's) of formulation that guide the analytic and synthetic study of interpretive structure and regulate the prospective stages of implementing this plan in particular cases.  The main purpose of these schematic conceptions is organizational, to provide a conceptual architecture for the burgeoning hierarchies of objects that arise in the generative processes of inquiry.

This subsection presents the ''objective project'' (OP) that I plan to take up for investigating the forms of sign relations, and it outlines three ''objective levels'' (OLs) of formulation that guide the analytic and synthetic study of interpretive structure and regulate the prospective stages of implementing this plan in particular cases.  The main purpose of these schematic conceptions is organizational, to provide a conceptual architecture for the burgeoning hierarchies of objects that arise in the generative processes of inquiry.

In the immediate context the objective project and the three levels of objective description are presented in broad terms.  In the process of surveying a variety of problems that serve to instigate efforts in this general direction, I explore the prospects of a particular ''organon'', or ''instrumental scheme for the analysis and synthesis of objects'', that is intended to address these issues, and I give an overview of its design.  In interpreting the sense of the word ''objective'' as it is used in this application, it may help to regard this objective project in the light of a telescopic analogy, with an ''objective'' being "a lens or system of lenses that forms an image of an object" (Webster's).

In the immediate context the objective project and the three levels of objective description are presented in broad terms.  In the process of surveying a variety of problems that serve to instigate efforts in this general direction, I explore the prospects of a particular ''organon'', or ''instrumental scheme for the analysis and synthesis of objects'', that is intended to address these issues, and I give an overview of its design.  In interpreting the sense of the word ''objective'' as it is used in this application, it may help to regard this objective project in the light of a telescopic analogy, with an ''objective'' being "a lens or system of lenses that forms an image of an object" (Webster's).

In the next three subsections after this one the focus returns to the separate levels of object structure, starting with the highest level of specification and treating the supporting levels in order of increasing detail.  At each stage, the developing tools are applied to the analysis of concrete problems that arise in trying to clarify the structure and function of sign relations.  For the present task, elaborations of this perspective are kept within the bounds of what is essential to deal with the example of A and B.

In the next three subsections after this one the focus returns to the separate levels of object structure, starting with the highest level of specification and treating the supporting levels in order of increasing detail.  At each stage, the developing tools are applied to the analysis of concrete problems that arise in trying to clarify the structure and function of sign relations.  For the present task, elaborations of this perspective are kept within the bounds of what is essential to deal with the example of <math>\text{A}</math> and <math>\text{B}</math>.

My use of the word ''object'' derives from the stock of the Greek root ''pragma'', which captures all the senses needed to suggest the stability of concern and the dedication to purpose that are forever bound up in the constitution of objects and the institution of objectives.  What it implies is that every object, objective, or objectivity is always somebody's object, objective, or objectivity.

My use of the word ''object'' derives from the stock of the Greek root ''pragma'', which captures all the senses needed to suggest the stability of concern and the dedication to purpose that are forever bound up in the constitution of objects and the institution of objectives.  What it implies is that every object, objective, or objectivity is always somebody's object, objective, or objectivity.

A radical form of analysis, in order to discern the contrasting intentions in everything construed as an object, requires interpreters to leave or at least re-place objects within the contexts of their live acquaintance, to reflect on their own motives and motifs for construing and employing objects in the ways they do, and to deconstruct how their own aims and biases enter into the form and use of objects.

A radical form of analysis, in order to discern the contrasting intentions in everything construed as an object, requires interpreters to leave or at least re-place objects within the contexts of their live acquaintance, to reflect on their own motives and motifs for construing and employing objects in the ways they do, and to deconstruct how their own aims and biases enter into the form and use of objects.

A radical form of synthesis, in order to integrate ideas and information devolving from entirely different ''frameworks of interpretation'' (FOI's), requires interpreters to reconstruct isolated concepts and descriptions on a mutually compatible basis and to use means of composition that can constitute a medium for common sensibilities.

A radical form of synthesis, in order to integrate ideas and information devolving from entirely different ''frameworks of interpretation'' (FOIs), requires interpreters to reconstruct isolated concepts and descriptions on a mutually compatible basis and to use means of composition that can constitute a medium for common sensibilities.

Thus, the radical project in all of these directions demands forms of interpretation, analysis, synthesis that can reflect a measure of light on the initially unstated assumptions of their prospective agents.

Thus, the radical project in all of these directions demands forms of interpretation, analysis, synthesis that can reflect a measure of light on the initially unstated assumptions of their prospective agents.

The foregoing considerations lead up to the organizing conception of an ''objective framework'' (OF), in which objects can be analyzed into sets of constituent objects, perhaps proceeding recursively to some limiting level where the fundamental objects of thought are thought to rest.  If an OF is felt to be completely unique and uniquely complete, then people tend to regard it as constituting a veritable ''ontology'', but I will not be able to go that far.  The recognition of plural and fallible perspectives that goes with pragmatic forms of thinking does not see itself falling into line any time soon with any one or only one ontology.

The foregoing considerations lead up to the organizing conception of an ''objective framework'' (OF), in which objects can be analyzed into sets of constituent objects, perhaps proceeding recursively to some limiting level where the fundamental objects of thought are thought to rest.  If an OF is felt to be completely unique and uniquely complete, then people tend to regard it as constituting a veritable ''ontology'', but I will not be able to go that far.  The recognition of plural and fallible perspectives that goes with pragmatic forms of thinking does not see itself falling into line any time soon with any one or only one ontology.

On the opposite score, there is no reason to deny the possibility that a unique and complete OF exists.  Indeed, the hope that such a standpoint does exist often provides inquiry with a beneficial regulative principle or a heuristic hypothesis to work on.  It merely happens, for the run of finitely informed creatures (FIC's) at any rate, that the existence of an ideal framework is something to be established after the fact, at least nearer toward the end of inquiry than the present time marks.

On the opposite score, there is no reason to deny the possibility that a unique and complete OF exists.  Indeed, the hope that such a standpoint does exist often provides inquiry with a beneficial regulative principle or a heuristic hypothesis to work on.  It merely happens, for the run of finitely informed creatures at any rate, that the existence of an ideal framework is something to be established after the fact, at least nearer toward the end of inquiry than the present time marks.

In this project, an OF embodies one or more ''objective genres'' (OG's), also called ''forms of analysis'' (FOA's) or ''forms of synthesis'' (FOS's), each of which delivers its own rendition of a ''great chain of being'' for all the objects under its purview.  In effect, each OG develops its own version of an ''ontological hierarchy'' (OH), designed independently of the others to capture an aspect of structure in its objective domain.

In this project, an OF embodies one or more ''objective genres'' (OGs), also called ''forms of analysis'' (FOAs) or ''forms of synthesis'' (FOSs), each of which delivers its own rendition of a ''great chain of being'' for all the objects under its purview.  In effect, each OG develops its own version of an ''ontological hierarchy'' (OH), designed independently of the others to capture an aspect of structure in its objective domain.

For now, the level of an OF operates as a catch-all, giving the projected discussion the elbow room it needs to range over an unspecified variety of different OG's and to place the particular OG's of active interest in a running context of comparative evaluations and developmental options.

For now, the level of an OF operates as a catch-all, giving the projected discussion the elbow room it needs to range over an unspecified variety of different OGs and to place the particular OGs of active interest in a running context of comparative evaluations and developmental options.

Any given OG can appear under the alias of a ''form of analysis'' (FOA) or a ''form of synthesis'' (FOS), depending on the direction of prevailing interest.  A notion frequently invoked for the same purpose is that of an ''ontological hierarchy'' (OH), but I will use this only provisionally, and only so long as it is clear that alternative ontologies can always be proposed for the same space of objects.

Any given OG can appear under the alias of a ''form of analysis'' (FOA) or a ''form of synthesis'' (FOS), depending on the direction of prevailing interest.  A notion frequently invoked for the same purpose is that of an ''ontological hierarchy'' (OH), but I will use this only provisionally, and only so long as it is clear that alternative ontologies can always be proposed for the same space of objects.

An OG embodies many ''objective motives'' or ''objective motifs'' (OM's).  If an OG constitutes a genus, or generic pattern of object structure, then the OM's amount to its specific and individual exemplars.  Thus, an OM can appear in the guise of a particular instance, trial, or "run" of the general form of analytic or synthetic procedure that accords with the protocols of a given OG.

An OG embodies many ''objective motives'' or ''objective motifs'' (OMs).  If an OG constitutes a genus, or generic pattern of object structure, then the OMs amount to its specific and individual exemplars.  Thus, an OM can appear in the guise of a particular instance, trial, or "run" of the general form of analytic or synthetic procedure that accords with the protocols of a given OG.

In order to provide a way of talking about objective points of view in general without having to specify a particular level, I will use the term ''objective concern'' (OC) to cover any individual OF, OG, or OM.

In order to provide a way of talking about objective points of view in general without having to specify a particular level, I will use the term ''objective concern'' (OC) to cover any individual OF, OG, or OM.

An OG, in its general way, or an OM, in its individual way, begins by relating each object in its purview to a unique set of further objects, called the ''components'', ''constituents'', ''effects'', ''ingredients'', or ''instances'' of that object with respect to that ''objective concern'' (OC).  As long as discussion remains fixed to what is visible within the scope of a particular OC, the collected effects of each object in view constitute its ''active ingredients'', supplying it with a unique decomposition that defines it to a degree sufficient for all purposes conceivable within that discussion.

An OG, in its general way, or an OM, in its individual way, begins by relating each object in its purview to a unique set of further objects, called the ''components'', ''constituents'', ''effects'', ''ingredients'', or ''instances'' of that object with respect to that ''objective concern'' (OC).  As long as discussion remains fixed to what is visible within the scope of a particular OC, the collected effects of each object in view constitute its ''active ingredients'', supplying it with a unique decomposition that defines it to a degree sufficient for all purposes conceivable within that discussion.

Contemplated from an outside perspective, however, the status of these effects as the ''defining unique determinants'' (DUD's) of each object under examination is something to be questioned.  The supposed constituents of an object that are obvious with respect to one OC can be regarded with suspicion from the points of view of alternative OC's, and their apparent status as rock-bottom substantives can find itself reconstituted in the guise of provisional placeholders (placebos or excipients) that precipitately index the potential operation of more subtly active ingredients.

Contemplated from an outside perspective, however, the status of these effects as the ''defining unique determinants'' of each object under examination is something to be questioned.  The supposed constituents of an object that are obvious with respect to one OC can be regarded with suspicion from the points of view of alternative OCs, and their apparent status as rock-bottom substantives can find itself reconstituted in the guise of provisional placeholders (placebos or excipients) that precipitately index the potential operation of more subtly active ingredients.

If a single OG could be unique and the realization of every object in it could be complete, then there might be some basis for saying that the elements of objects and the extensions of objects are known, and thus that the very ''objects of objects'' (OOO's) are determined by its plan.  In practice, however, it takes a diversity of overlapping and not entirely systematic OG's to make up a moderately useful OF.

If a single OG could be unique and the realization of every object in it could be complete, then there might be some basis for saying that the elements of objects and the extensions of objects are known, and thus that the very ''objects of objects'' are determined by its plan.  In practice, however, it takes a diversity of overlapping and not entirely systematic OGs to make up a moderately useful OF.

What gives an OG a definite constitution is the naming of a space of objects that falls under its purview and the setting down of a system of axioms that affects its generating relations.

What gives an OG a definite constitution is the naming of a space of objects that falls under its purview and the setting down of a system of axioms that affects its generating relations.

What gives an OM a determinate character from moment to moment is the particular selection of objects and linkages from its governing OG that it can say it has appropriated, apprehended, or actualized, that is, the portion of its OG that it can say actually belongs to it, and whether they make up a lot or a little, the roles it can say it has made its own.

What gives an OM a determinate character from moment to moment is the particular selection of objects and linkages from its governing OG that it can say it has appropriated, apprehended, or actualized, that is, the portion of its OG that it can say actually belongs to it, and whether they make up a lot or a little, the roles it can say it has made its own.

In setting out the preceding characterization, I have reiterated what is likely to seem like an anthropomorphism, prefacing each requirement of the candidate OM with the qualification ''it can say''.  This is done in order to emphasize that an OM's command of a share of its OG is partly a function of the interpretive effability that it brings to bear on the object domain and partly a matter of the expressive power that it is able to dictate over its own development.

In setting out the preceding characterization, I have reiterated what is likely to seem like an anthropomorphism, prefacing each requirement of the candidate OM with the qualification ''it can say''.  This is done in order to emphasize that an OMs command of a share of its OG is partly a function of the interpretive effability that it brings to bear on the object domain and partly a matter of the expressive power that it is able to dictate over its own development.

=====1.3.4.13. Formalization of OF : Objective Levels=====

=====1.3.4.13. Formalization of OF : Objective Levels=====