Changes

====5.2.11. Reflective Interpretive Frameworks====

====5.2.11. Reflective Interpretive Frameworks====

<pre>

<br>

No, Cassius, for the eye sees not itself

But by reflection, by some other things.

| colspan="2" | No, Cassius, for the eye sees not itself

| colspan="2" | But by reflection, by some other things.

The rest of this Section (?), continuing the discussion of formalization in terms of concrete examples and extending over the next 50 (?) Subsections (?), details the construction of a ''reflective interpretive framework'' (RIF).  This is a special type of sign theoretic setting, illustrated in the present case as based on the sign relations A and B, but intended more generally to constitute a fully developed environment of objective and interpretive resources, in the likes of which an ''inquiry into inquiry'' can reasonably be expected to find its home.

 

 

The rest of this Section ???, continuing the discussion of formalization in terms of concrete examples and extending over the next 50 ??? Subsections ???, details the construction of a ''reflective interpretive framework'' (RIF).  This is a special type of sign theoretic setting, illustrated in the present case as based on the sign relations A and B, but intended more generally to constitute a fully developed environment of objective and interpretive resources, in the likes of which an ''inquiry into inquiry'' can reasonably be expected to find its home.

An inquiry into inquiry necessarily involves itself in various forms of self application and self reference.  Even when the ''inquiree'' and the ''inquirer'', the operand inquiry and the operant inquiry, are conceived to be separately instituted and disjointly embodied in material activity, they still must share a common form and enjoy a collection of definitive characteristics, or else the use of a common term for both sides of the application is equivocal and hardly justified.  But this depiction of an inquiry into inquiry, if it is imagined to be valid, raises a couple of difficult issues, of how a form of activity like inquiry can be said to apply and to refer to itself, and of how a general form of activity can be materialized in concretely different processes, that is, represented in the parametrically diverse instantiations of its own generic principles.  Before these problems can be clarified to any degree it is necessary to develop a suitable framework of discussion, along with a requisite array of conceptual tools.  This is where the construction of a RIF comes in.

An inquiry into inquiry necessarily involves itself in various forms of self application and self reference.  Even when the ''inquiree'' and the ''inquirer'', the operand inquiry and the operant inquiry, are conceived to be separately instituted and disjointly embodied in material activity, they still must share a common form and enjoy a collection of definitive characteristics, or else the use of a common term for both sides of the application is equivocal and hardly justified.  But this depiction of an inquiry into inquiry, if it is imagined to be valid, raises a couple of difficult issues, of how a form of activity like inquiry can be said to apply and to refer to itself, and of how a general form of activity can be materialized in concretely different processes, that is, represented in the parametrically diverse instantiations of its own generic principles.  Before these problems can be clarified to any degree it is necessary to develop a suitable framework of discussion, along with a requisite array of conceptual tools.  This is where the construction of a RIF comes in.