Difference between revisions of "Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 7"
Jon Awbrey (talk | contribs) (+ TOC) |
Jon Awbrey (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
===7.1. Divertimento : Eternity in Love with the Creatures of Time=== | ===7.1. Divertimento : Eternity in Love with the Creatures of Time=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Once again, the discussion has reached a point where so many topics interact, outlining a core where multiple threads converge and diverge and recur again, suggesting a pattern and then fading again, projecting so energetic a mass of confusion that it casts up a shattered image of its own shape, scattered half in light and half in shadow back into the veils of its own convolutions, and eventually unfolding so complicated a tangle that a finitely informed creature like myself is forced to make a selection, to take a chance on any feasible way to fuse the manifold of senseless impressions, and finally to pick out amid the maze of clues a single filament that promises to provide a reasonable way to proceed. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Once again, there arise from the depths of this chaos a few spare forms of mutual ascent, appearing to garner demand all around and to plow it back into the present scene, gradually drawing out emerging aspirations toward an organizing conception and investing the resulting resolutions with the full faith and credit of a manifest destination. But what do these ascendant archetypes really have in their compact to accomplish? While not still mutely ascending to the stylistic fiction of a clean slate, nor quite utterly razing the resurgent need for a symbolic scheme, they do portend a chart that is bold enough in its guiding lines to yield a steady compass for the present direction, while yet they envision a blueprint that remains open enough in its enclosing forms to ready the opportunities of future experience in unforeseen developments of the living subject matter. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In the remainder of the current phase of discussion, concentrating on concrete examples of sign relations, I will continue to glean as much information as possible from the initial examples A and B, gradually bringing a set of considerations that approaches the full power of the pragmatic theory of signs to bear on their case. Of course, the aim of this presentation is directed more to illustrating the analytic capacities and the empirical implications that accompany the use of sign relations, especially as it works out in service to the practical goals of inquiry, than it is attached to any special properties of the examples themselves. | ||
====7.1.1. Reflections on the Presentation of Examples==== | ====7.1.1. Reflections on the Presentation of Examples==== | ||
Revision as of 02:44, 18 August 2011
• Contents • Part 1 • Part 2 • Part 3 • Part 4 • Part 5 • Part 6 • Part 7 • Appendices • References • Document History •
7.
7.1. Divertimento : Eternity in Love with the Creatures of Time
Once again, the discussion has reached a point where so many topics interact, outlining a core where multiple threads converge and diverge and recur again, suggesting a pattern and then fading again, projecting so energetic a mass of confusion that it casts up a shattered image of its own shape, scattered half in light and half in shadow back into the veils of its own convolutions, and eventually unfolding so complicated a tangle that a finitely informed creature like myself is forced to make a selection, to take a chance on any feasible way to fuse the manifold of senseless impressions, and finally to pick out amid the maze of clues a single filament that promises to provide a reasonable way to proceed.
Once again, there arise from the depths of this chaos a few spare forms of mutual ascent, appearing to garner demand all around and to plow it back into the present scene, gradually drawing out emerging aspirations toward an organizing conception and investing the resulting resolutions with the full faith and credit of a manifest destination. But what do these ascendant archetypes really have in their compact to accomplish? While not still mutely ascending to the stylistic fiction of a clean slate, nor quite utterly razing the resurgent need for a symbolic scheme, they do portend a chart that is bold enough in its guiding lines to yield a steady compass for the present direction, while yet they envision a blueprint that remains open enough in its enclosing forms to ready the opportunities of future experience in unforeseen developments of the living subject matter.
In the remainder of the current phase of discussion, concentrating on concrete examples of sign relations, I will continue to glean as much information as possible from the initial examples A and B, gradually bringing a set of considerations that approaches the full power of the pragmatic theory of signs to bear on their case. Of course, the aim of this presentation is directed more to illustrating the analytic capacities and the empirical implications that accompany the use of sign relations, especially as it works out in service to the practical goals of inquiry, than it is attached to any special properties of the examples themselves.
7.1.1. Reflections on the Presentation of Examples
7.1.2. Searching for Parameters
7.1.3. Defect Analysis
7.1.4. The Pragmatic Critique
7.1.5. Pragmatic Operating Notions
7.1.6. Defects of Presentation
7.1.7. Dues to Process
7.1.8. Duties to Purpose
7.2. Computational Design Philosophy
7.2.1. Intentional Objects and Attitudes
7.2.2. Imperfect Design and Persistent Error
7.2.3. Propositional Reasoning About Relations
7.2.4. Dynamic and Evaluative Frameworks
7.2.5. Discussion of Examples
7.2.6. Information and Inquiry
• Contents • Part 1 • Part 2 • Part 3 • Part 4 • Part 5 • Part 6 • Part 7 • Appendices • References • Document History •
<sharethis />
