| Line 1,472: |
Line 1,472: |
| | Whenever the sense is clear, it is usually convenient to stick with the more generic terms for higher order signs and higher order sign relations, letting context determine the appropriate meaning. For the rest of this section, it is mainly the categories of higher ascent signs and higher import signs that come into play. | | Whenever the sense is clear, it is usually convenient to stick with the more generic terms for higher order signs and higher order sign relations, letting context determine the appropriate meaning. For the rest of this section, it is mainly the categories of higher ascent signs and higher import signs that come into play. |
| | | | |
| − | <pre>
| + | Inquiry into inquiry is necessary because it is an unavoidable part of the inquiry into anything else, since critical reflection on the methods employed is implicit in the task. This means that inquiry into inquiry must be able to formulate and critique alternative descriptions of inquiry in general, including itself. Thus, there are notions of ''entelechy'', of a self-referent objective, a completion in self-description, or an end to self-actualization, that are intrinsic to the conception of inquiry, whether or not its ends-in-view are ever achieved. If inquiry, as a manner of thinking, is carried on in sign relations and is ever to be supported by computational means, then these reflections raise the issue of self-describing sign relations and self-documenting data structures. |
| − | The inquiry into inquiry is not pursued for reasons of sheer narcissism, but because it is unavoidably a part of the inquiry into anything else, since critical reflection on the methods employed is implicit in the task. This means that the inquiry into inquiry must be able to formulate and critique alternative descriptions of inquiry in general, including itself. Thus, there are notions of "entelechy", of a self referent objective, a completion in self description, or an end to self actualization, that are intrinsic to the conception of inquiry, whether or not its ends in view are ever achieved. If inquiry, as a manner of thinking, is carried on in sign relations and is ever to be supported by computational means, then these reflections raise the issue of self describing sign relations and self documenting data structures.
| |
| | | | |
| − | This is where HO sign relations come in, making it possible to formalize sign relations that describe themselves and other sign relations, and thus enabling one to conceive of inquiries that inquire into themselves and other inquiries, at least in part. It is useful to approach these topics in a couple of stages, at first, by describing sign relations that describe other sign relations, and then, by describing sign relations that describe themselves. Although the implicit aim, or naive hope, is always to make these descriptions as complete as possible, it has to be recognized that partial success is all that is likely to be realized in practice. It seems to be something between rare and impossible that a non trivial sign relation could completely describe itself with respect to every facet of its being and in all the ways that it does in fact exist. | + | This is where higher order sign relations come in, making it possible to formalize sign relations that describe themselves and other sign relations, and thus enabling one to conceive of inquiries that inquire into themselves and other inquiries, at least in part. It is useful to approach these topics in a couple of stages, at first, by describing sign relations that describe other sign relations, and then, by describing sign relations that describe themselves. Although the implicit aim, or naive hope, is always to make these descriptions as complete as possible, it has to be recognized that partial success is all that is likely to be realized in practice. It seems to be something between rare and impossible that a non-trivial sign relation could completely describe itself with respect to every facet of its being and in all the ways that it does in fact exist. |
| | | | |
| | + | <pre> |
| | Nevertheless, "partially self describing" (PSD) sign relations and "partially self documenting" (PSD) data structures do arise in practice, and so it is incumbent on this inquiry to look into the question of how they usually develop. That is, how does a sign get itself interpreted in a sign relation in such a way that it acts as a partial self description of that selfsame sign relation? There appear to be two main ways that this can happen. Occasionally, it develops through the reflective operation or insightful turn of "retracting projections", that is, by recognizing that a feature attributed to others is also (or primarily) an aspect of oneself. More commonly, PSD sign relations are encountered already in place, as when a HO sign relation has signs that describe lower orders, partial aspects, or previous stages of itself. | | Nevertheless, "partially self describing" (PSD) sign relations and "partially self documenting" (PSD) data structures do arise in practice, and so it is incumbent on this inquiry to look into the question of how they usually develop. That is, how does a sign get itself interpreted in a sign relation in such a way that it acts as a partial self description of that selfsame sign relation? There appear to be two main ways that this can happen. Occasionally, it develops through the reflective operation or insightful turn of "retracting projections", that is, by recognizing that a feature attributed to others is also (or primarily) an aspect of oneself. More commonly, PSD sign relations are encountered already in place, as when a HO sign relation has signs that describe lower orders, partial aspects, or previous stages of itself. |
| | | | |