Changes

In this scheme, <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} x {}^{\prime\prime}</math> and <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} y {}^{\prime\prime}</math> indicate logical dimensions of variation or propositional features of description that govern an agent's possibilities of action and perception.  Used as primitive logical terms they denote the distinctive features that determine an agent's spaces of performance and experience.  In combination with logical operators they generate a descriptive framework that encompasses both:  (1) the methodological ''approaches'' or ''perspectives'' toward objects that an agent can adopt, and (2) the categorical ''aspects'' of objects, the independently coherent systems of properties and qualities that characterize the hypothetically unified object system.

In this scheme, <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} x {}^{\prime\prime}</math> and <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} y {}^{\prime\prime}</math> indicate logical dimensions of variation or propositional features of description that govern an agent's possibilities of action and perception.  Used as primitive logical terms they denote the distinctive features that determine an agent's spaces of performance and experience.  In combination with logical operators they generate a descriptive framework that encompasses both:  (1) the methodological ''approaches'' or ''perspectives'' toward objects that an agent can adopt, and (2) the categorical ''aspects'' of objects, the independently coherent systems of properties and qualities that characterize the hypothetically unified object system.

In practice, it does not matter whether one regards <math>x\!</math> and <math>y\!</math> as logical features or as boolean variables, so long as the full set of positive and negative features <math>\{ x, (x), y, (y) \}\!</math> is initially available to classify the relevant space of object perceptions or interpretive actions.  Analogous to its role in the staging relations { <math>\{ \lessdot ~,~ \gtrdot \},</math> the label <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} j {}^{\prime\prime}</math> indicates the active interpreter, that is, the system and moment of interpretation or the state of the interpretive system that is held to be responsible for finding, making, testing, or following through the consequences of posing the contemplated distinctions.

In practice, it does not matter whether one regards x and y as logical features or as boolean variables, so long as the full set of positive and negative features { x, (x), y, (y) } is initially available to classify the relevant space of object perceptions or interpretive actions.  Analogous to its role in the staging relations { < , > }, the label "j" indicates the active interpreter, that is, the system and moment of interpretation or the state of the interpretive system that is held to be responsible for finding, making, testing, or following through the consequences of posing the contemplated distinctions.

Dual to the statements of momentary interpretive distinctions (MIDs) are the respective statements of momentary interpretive coincidences (MICs):

Dual to the statements of momentary interpretive distinctions (MIDs) are the respective statements of momentary interpretive coincidences (MICs):

j :  x  =  y,    x  =j  y,    x  =  y  : j,

j :  x  =  y,    x  =j  y,    x  =  y  : j,

j :  x <=> y,    x <=>j y,    x <=> y  : j,

j :  x <=> y,    x <=>j y,    x <=> y  : j,

j : ((x  ,  y)), ((x  ,  y))j, ((x  ,  y)) : j.

j : ((x  ,  y)), ((x  ,  y))j, ((x  ,  y)) : j.

Each of these expressions is intended to indicate a set of circumstances that could otherwise be rendered by any one of the following, logically equivalent statements:

Each of these expressions is intended to indicate a set of circumstances that could otherwise be rendered by any one of the following, logically equivalent statements:

1. j appears to see a coincidence between x and y.

# <math>j\!</math> appears to see a coincidence between <math>x\!</math> and <math>y.\!</math>

# <math>j\!</math> sees <math>x\!</math> and <math>y\!</math> as manifestly equivalent ranges of possibilities.

The introduction of explicit names for systems of interpretation, as well as for their interpretive moments, models of interpretation, objective concerns, points of development, and situations of use, is intended to flesh out the lifeless idiom or insipid brand of ''assignment statements'' that are currently found in CL settings, which are typically rendered so abstractly as to constitute a entire style of ''anonymous'', ''passive'', or ''unattributed'' excuses for fully executable commands.

 

 

The introduction of explicit names for systems of interpretation, as well as for their interpretive moments, models of interpretation, objective concerns, points of development, and situations of use, is intended to flesh out the lifeless idiom or insipid brand of "assignment statements" that are currently found in CL settings, which are typically rendered so abstractly as to constitute a entire style of "anonymous", "passive", or "unattributed" excuses for fully executable commands.

In a related usage, one is permitted to reparse the "anonymous" or "passive" form of assignment statement:

In a related usage, one is permitted to reparse the "anonymous" or "passive" form of assignment statement: