12,080
edits
Changes
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Sunday June 09, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to searchDirectory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems (view source)
Revision as of 19:00, 1 September 2007
, 19:00, 1 September 2007→1.3.4.14. Application of OF : Generic Level: markup
In this fashion, the definitions of icons and indices can be reformulated:
In this fashion, the definitions of icons and indices can be reformulated:
: ''x''’s Icon = ''x''’s Property's Instance = ''x''·<font face="system"><s><</s></font><font face="system"><s>></s></font>,
: ''x''’s Icon = ''x''’s Property's Instance = ''x'' <math>\cdot</math> <font face="system"><s><</s></font><font face="system"><s>></s></font>,
: ''x''’s Index = ''x''’s Instance's Property = ''x''·<font face="system"><s>></s></font><font face="system"><s><</s></font>.
: ''x''’s Index = ''x''’s Instance's Property = ''x'' <math>\cdot</math> <font face="system"><s>></s></font><font face="system"><s><</s></font>.
According to the definitions of the homogeneous sign relations ''M'' and ''N'', we have:
According to the definitions of the homogeneous sign relations ''M'' and ''N'', we have:
: ''x''’s Icon = x.MOS,
: ''x''’s Icon = ''x'' <math>\cdot</math> ''M''<sub>''OS''</sub>,
: ''x''’s Index = x.NOS.
: ''x''’s Index = ''x'' <math>\cdot</math> ''N''<sub>''OS''</sub>.
Equating the results of these equations yields the analysis of M and N as forms of composition within the genre of properties and instances:
Equating the results of these equations yields the analysis of M and N as forms of composition within the genre of properties and instances:
: ''x''’s Icon = x.MOS = x.<>,
: ''x''’s Icon = ''x'' <math>\cdot</math> ''M''<sub>''OS''</sub> = ''x'' <math>\cdot</math> <>,
: ''x''’s Index = x.NOS = x.><.
: ''x''’s Index = ''x'' <math>\cdot</math> ''N''<sub>''OS''</sub> = ''x'' <math>\cdot</math> ><.
On the assumption (to be examined more closely later) that any object x can be taken as a sign, the converse relations appear to be manifestly identical to the originals:
On the assumption (to be examined more closely later) that any object x can be taken as a sign, the converse relations appear to be manifestly identical to the originals:
: For Icons: ''x''’s Object = x.MSO = x.<>,
: For Icons: ''x''’s Object = ''x'' <math>\cdot</math> ''M''<sub>''SO''</sub> = ''x'' <math>\cdot</math> <>,
: For Indices: ''x''’s Object = x.NSO = x.><.
: For Indices: ''x''’s Object = ''x'' <math>\cdot</math> ''N''<sub>''SO''</sub> = ''x'' <math>\cdot</math> ><.
Abstracting from the applications to an otiose x delivers the results:
Abstracting from the applications to an otiose x delivers the results:
: For Icons: MOS = MSO = <>,
: For Icons: ''M''<sub>''OS''</sub> = ''M''<sub>''SO''</sub> = <>,
: For Indices: NOS = NSO = ><.
: For Indices: ''N''<sub>''OS''</sub> = ''N''<sub>''SO''</sub> = ><.
This appears to suggest that icons and their objects are icons of each other, and that indices and their objects are indices of each other. Are the results of these symbolic manipulations really to be trusted? Given that there is no mention of the interpretive agent to whom these sign relations are supposed to appear, one might well suspect that these results can only amount to approximate truths or potential verities.
This appears to suggest that icons and their objects are icons of each other, and that indices and their objects are indices of each other. Are the results of these symbolic manipulations really to be trusted? Given that there is no mention of the interpretive agent to whom these sign relations are supposed to appear, one might well suspect that these results can only amount to approximate truths or potential verities.
