Changes

In case there is difficulty with the meaning of the word ''meaning'', I replace its use with references to a ''system of interpretation'' (SOI), a technical concept that will be increasingly formalized as this project proceeds.  Thus, the writer's job description is reformulated as follows.

In case there is difficulty with the meaning of the word ''meaning'', I replace its use with references to a ''system of interpretation'' (SOI), a technical concept that will be increasingly formalized as this project proceeds.  Thus, the writer's job description is reformulated as follows.

* The writer's task is not to create a system of interpretation (SOI) from nothing, but to construct a relation from the typical SOI's that are available in ordinary discourse to the particular SOI's that are intended to be the effects of a particular discussion.

* The writer's task is not to create a system of interpretation (SOI) from nothing, but to construct a relation from the typical SOIs that are available in ordinary discourse to the particular SOIs that are intended to be the effects of a particular discussion.

This assignment begins with an informal system of interpretation (SOI₁), and builds a relation from it to another system of interpretation (SOI₂).  The first is an informal SOI that amounts to a shared resource of writer and reader.  The latter is a system of meanings in practice that is the current object of the writer's intention to recommend for the reader's consideration and, hopefully, edification.  In order to have a compact term for highlighting the effects of a discussion that ''builds a relation'' between SOI's, I will call this aspect of the process ''narration''.

This assignment begins with an informal system of interpretation (SOI₁), and builds a relation from it to another system of interpretation (SOI₂).  The first is an informal SOI that amounts to a shared resource of writer and reader.  The latter is a system of meanings in practice that is the current object of the writer's intention to recommend for the reader's consideration and, hopefully, edification.  In order to have a compact term for highlighting the effects of a discussion that ''builds a relation'' between SOI's, I will call this aspect of the process ''narration''.

It is the writer's ethical responsibility to ensure that a discourse is potentially edifying with respect to the reader's current SOI, and the reader's self-interest to evaluate whether a discourse is actually edifying from the perspective of the reader's present SOI.

It is the writer's ethical responsibility to ensure that a discourse is potentially edifying with respect to the reader's current SOI, and the reader's self-interest to evaluate whether a discourse is actually edifying from the perspective of the reader's present SOI.

Formally, the relation that the writer builds from SOI to SOI can always be cast or recast as a three-place relation, one whose staple element of structure is an ordered or indexed triple.  One component of each triple is anchored in the interpreter of the moment, and the other two form a connection with the source and target SOI's of the current assignment.

Formally, the relation that the writer builds from SOI to SOI can always be cast or recast as a three-place relation, one whose staple element of structure is an ordered or indexed triple.  One component of each triple is anchored in the interpreter of the moment, and the other two form a connection with the source and target SOIs of the current assignment.

Once this relation is built, a shift in the attention of any interpreter or a change in the present focus of discourse can leave the impression of a transformation taking place from SOI₁ to SOI₂, but this is more illusory (or allusory) than real.  To be more precise, this style of transformation takes place on a virtual basis, and need not have the substantive impact (or import) that a substantial replacement of one SOI by another would imply.  For a writer to affect a reader in this way would simply not be polite.  A moment's consideration of the kinds of SOI-building worth having leads me to enumerate a few characteristics of ''polite discourse'' or ''considerate discussion''.

Once this relation is built, a shift in the attention of any interpreter or a change in the present focus of discourse can leave the impression of a transformation taking place from SOI₁ to SOI₂, but this is more illusory (or allusory) than real.  To be more precise, this style of transformation takes place on a virtual basis, and need not have the substantive impact (or import) that a substantial replacement of one SOI by another would imply.  For a writer to affect a reader in this way would simply not be polite.  A moment's consideration of the kinds of SOI-building worth having leads me to enumerate a few characteristics of ''polite discourse'' or ''considerate discussion''.

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=====