Changes

What does appear in one of these Tables?  It is not the objects that appear under the ''Object'' heading, but only the signs of these objects.  It is not even the signs and interpretants themselves that appear under the ''Sign'' and ''Interpretant'' headings, but only the remoter signs of them that are formed by quotation.  The unformalized sign relation in which these signs of objects, signs of signs, and signs of interpretants have their role as such is not the one Tabled, but another one that operates behind the scenes to bring its image and intent to the reader.

What does appear in one of these Tables?  It is not the objects that appear under the ''Object'' heading, but only the signs of these objects.  It is not even the signs and interpretants themselves that appear under the ''Sign'' and ''Interpretant'' headings, but only the remoter signs of them that are formed by quotation.  The unformalized sign relation in which these signs of objects, signs of signs, and signs of interpretants have their role as such is not the one Tabled, but another one that operates behind the scenes to bring its image and intent to the reader.

To understand what the Table is meant to convey the reader has to participate in the informal and more accessory sign relation in order to follow its indications to the intended and more accessible sign relation.  As logical or mathematical objects, the sign relations A and B do not exist in the medium of their Tables but are represented there by dint of the relevant structural properties that they share with these Tables.  As fictional characters, the interpretive agents A and B do not exist in a uniquely literal sense but serve as typical literary figures to convey the intended formal account, standing in for concrete experiences with language use the likes of which are familiar to writer and reader alike.

To understand what the Table is meant to convey the reader has to participate in the informal and more accessory sign relation in order to follow its indications to the intended and more accessible sign relation.  As logical or mathematical objects, the sign relations of <math>\text{A}</math> and <math>\text{B}</math> do not exist in the medium of their Tables but are represented there by dint of the relevant structural properties that they share with these Tables.  As fictional characters, the interpretive agents <math>\text{A}</math> and <math>\text{B}</math> do not exist in a uniquely literal sense but serve as typical literary figures to convey the intended formal account, standing in for concrete experiences with language use the likes of which are familiar to writer and reader alike.

The successful formalization of a focal sign relation cannot get around its reliance on prior forms of understanding, like the raw ability to follow indications whose components of competence are embodied in the vaster and largely unarticulated context of a peripheral sign relation.  But the extent to which the analysis of a formal sign relation depends on a particular context or a particular interpreter is the extent to which an opportunity for understanding is undermined by a prior petition of the very principles to be explained.  Thus, there is little satisfaction in special pleadings or ad hoc accounts of interpretive practice that cannot be transported across a multitude of contexts, media, and interpreters.

The successful formalization of a focal sign relation cannot get around its reliance on prior forms of understanding, like the raw ability to follow indications whose components of competence are embodied in the vaster and largely unarticulated context of a peripheral sign relation.  But the extent to which the analysis of a formal sign relation depends on a particular context or a particular interpreter is the extent to which an opportunity for understanding is undermined by a prior petition of the very principles to be explained.  Thus, there is little satisfaction in special pleadings or ad hoc accounts of interpretive practice that cannot be transported across a multitude of contexts, media, and interpreters.

One task is to eliminate several types of formal confound that currently affect this investigation.  Even though there is an essential tension to be maintained down the lines between casual and formal discussion, the traffic across these realms needs to be monitored carefully.  There are identifiable sources of confusion that devolve from the context of informal discussion and invade the arena of formal study, subverting its necessary powers of reflection and undermining its overall effectiveness.

One task is to eliminate several types of formal confound that currently affect this investigation.  Even though there is an essential tension to be maintained down the lines between casual and formal discussion, the traffic across these realms needs to be monitored carefully.  There are identifiable sources of confusion that devolve from the context of informal discussion and invade the arena of formal study, subverting its necessary powers of reflection and undermining its overall effectiveness.

One serious form of contamination can be traced to the accidental circumstance that A and B and I all use the same proper names for A and B.  This renders it is impossible to tell, purely from the tokens that are being tendered, whether it is a formal or a casual transaction that forms the issue of the moment.  It also means that a formalization of the writer's and the reader's accessory sign relations would have several portions that look identical to pieces of those Tables under formal review.

One serious form of contamination can be traced to the accidental circumstance that <math>\text{A}</math> and <math>\text{B}</math> and I all use the same proper names for <math>\text{A}</math> and <math>\text{B}</math>.  This renders it is impossible to tell, purely from the tokens that are being tendered, whether it is a formal or a casual transaction that forms the issue of the moment.  It also means that a formalization of the writer's and the reader's accessory sign relations would have several portions that look identical to pieces of those Tables under formal review.

=====1.3.4.8. The Conflict of Interpretations=====

=====1.3.4.8. The Conflict of Interpretations=====