Changes

# ''For indices, the existence of a separate reality is obligatory.''  And yet this reality need not affect the object of the sign.  In essence, indices are satisfied with a basis in reality that need only reside in an actual object instance, one that establishes a real connection between the object and its index with regard to the OG in question.

# ''For indices, the existence of a separate reality is obligatory.''  And yet this reality need not affect the object of the sign.  In essence, indices are satisfied with a basis in reality that need only reside in an actual object instance, one that establishes a real connection between the object and its index with regard to the OG in question.

Finally, suppose that M and N are hypothetical sign relations intended to capture all the iconic and indexical relationships, respectively, that a typical object x enjoys within its genre G.  A sign relation in which every sign has the same kind of relation to its object under an assumed form of analysis is appropriately called a ''homogeneous sign relation''.  In particular, if H is a homogeneous sign relation in which every sign has either an iconic or an indexical relation to its object, then it is convenient to apply the corresponding adjective to the whole of H.

Finally, suppose that ''M'' and ''N'' are hypothetical sign relations intended to capture all the iconic and indexical relationships, respectively, that a typical object ''x'' enjoys within its genre ''G''.  A sign relation in which every sign has the same kind of relation to its object under an assumed form of analysis is appropriately called a ''homogeneous sign relation''.  In particular, if ''H'' is a homogeneous sign relation in which every sign has either an iconic or an indexical relation to its object, then it is convenient to apply the corresponding adjective to the whole of ''H''.

Typical sign relations of the iconic or indexical kind generate especially simple and remarkably stable sorts of interpretive processes.  In arity, they could almost be classified as ''approximately dyadic'', since most of their interesting structure is wrapped up in their denotative aspects, while their connotative functions are relegated to the tangential role of preserving the directions of their denotative axes.  In a metaphorical but true sense, iconic and indexical sign relations equip objective frameworks with "gyroscopes", helping them maintain their interpretive perspectives in a persistent orientation toward their objective world.

Typical sign relations of the iconic or indexical kind generate especially simple and remarkably stable sorts of interpretive processes.  In arity, they could almost be classified as ''approximately dyadic'', since most of their interesting structure is wrapped up in their denotative aspects, while their connotative functions are relegated to the tangential role of preserving the directions of their denotative axes.  In a metaphorical but true sense, iconic and indexical sign relations equip objective frameworks with "gyroscopes", helping them maintain their interpretive perspectives in a persistent orientation toward their objective world.

The dispensation of consensual bonds in a common medium leaves room for many individual interpreters to inhabit a shared frame of reference, and for a diversity of transient interpretive moments to take up and consolidate a continuing perspective on a world of mutual interests.  This further increases the likelihood that differing and developing interpreters will become able to participate in compatible views and coherent values in relation to the aggregate of things, to collate information from a variety of sources, and to bring concerted action to bear on an appreciable distribution of extended realities and intended objectives.  Instead of the disparities due to parallax leading to disorder and paralysis, accounting for the distinctive points of view behind the discrepancies can give rise to stereoscopic perspectives.  In a community of interpretation and inquiry that has all these virtues, each individual try at objectivity is a venture that all the interpreters are nonetheless able to call their own.

The dispensation of consensual bonds in a common medium leaves room for many individual interpreters to inhabit a shared frame of reference, and for a diversity of transient interpretive moments to take up and consolidate a continuing perspective on a world of mutual interests.  This further increases the likelihood that differing and developing interpreters will become able to participate in compatible views and coherent values in relation to the aggregate of things, to collate information from a variety of sources, and to bring concerted action to bear on an appreciable distribution of extended realities and intended objectives.  Instead of the disparities due to parallax leading to disorder and paralysis, accounting for the distinctive points of view behind the discrepancies can give rise to stereoscopic perspectives.  In a community of interpretation and inquiry that has all these virtues, each individual try at objectivity is a venture that all the interpreters are nonetheless able to call their own.

Is this prospect a utopian vision?  Perhaps it is exactly that.  But it is the hope that inquiry discovers resting first and last within itself, quietly guiding every other aim and motive of inquiry.

Is this prospect a utopian vision?  Perhaps it is exactly that.  But it is the hope that inquiry discovers resting first and last within itself, quietly guiding every other aim and motive of inquiry.

Turning to the language of objective concerns, what can now be said about the compositional structures of the iconic sign relation M and the indexical sign relation N?  In preparation for this topic, a few additional steps must be taken to continue formalizing the concept of an objective genre and to begin developing a calculus for composing objective motifs.

Turning to the language of ''objective concerns'', what can now be said about the compositional structures of the iconic sign relation ''M'' and the indexical sign relation ''N''?  In preparation for this topic, a few additional steps must be taken to continue formalizing the concept of an objective genre and to begin developing a calculus for composing objective motifs.

I recall the OG of ''properties and instances'' and introduce the symbols "<" and ">" for the converse pair of dyadic relations that generate it.  Reverting to the convention I employ in formal discussions of applying relational operators on the right, it is convenient to express the relative terms ''property of x'' and ''instance of x'' by means of a case inflection on x, that is, as ''x's property'' and ''x's instance'', respectively.  Described in this way, OG (Prop, Inst) = ‹ < , > ›, where:

I recall the OG of ''properties and instances'' and re-introduce the symbols "<font face="system"><s>&lt;</s></font>" and "<font face="system"><s>&gt;</s></font>" for the converse pair of dyadic relations that generate it.  Reverting to the convention I employ in formal discussions of applying relational operators on the right, it is convenient to express the relative terms ''property of x'' and ''instance of x'' by means of a case inflection on ''x'', that is, as "''x''&rsquo;s property" and "''x''&rsquo;s instance", respectively.  Described in this way, OG(Prop,&nbsp;Inst) = (&nbsp;<font face="system"><s>&lt;</s></font>&nbsp;,&nbsp;<font face="system"><s>&gt;</s></font>&nbsp;), where:

"x <" = "x's Property" = "Property of x" = "Object above x",

"x <" = "x's Property" = "Property of x" = "Object above x",