Changes

When one says that a POV is associated with a particular proposition, whether containing it or instancing it, one always means a POV as it exists at a particular POD, or through a particular range of its PODs.  For example, if I say <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime}J ~\text{thinks}~ K ~\text{is smarter than}~ L{}^{\prime\prime},\!</math> then I am implicating a POV that <math>J\!</math> has at a particular POD, assumed to be capable of specification.  Moreover, I am relying on the specific information inherent in this POD to index the particular persons <math>K\!</math> and <math>L\!</math> that I am assuming <math>J\!</math> has in mind at that POD.  In technical terms, this requires the &ldquo;intentional context&rdquo; that is signaled by the verb ''thinks'', normally &ldquo;opaque&rdquo; to all distributions of contextual information from any point outside its frame, to be treated as &ldquo;transparent&rdquo; to the packet of information that is assumed to be represented by the POD in question.

When one says that a POV is associated with a particular proposition, whether containing it or instancing it, one always means a POV as it exists at a particular POD, or through a particular range of its PODs.  For example, if I say <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime}J ~\text{thinks}~ K ~\text{is smarter than}~ L{}^{\prime\prime},\!</math> then I am implicating a POV that <math>J\!</math> has at a particular POD, assumed to be capable of specification.  Moreover, I am relying on the specific information inherent in this POD to index the particular persons <math>K\!</math> and <math>L\!</math> that I am assuming <math>J\!</math> has in mind at that POD.  In technical terms, this requires the &ldquo;intentional context&rdquo; that is signaled by the verb ''thinks'', normally &ldquo;opaque&rdquo; to all distributions of contextual information from any point outside its frame, to be treated as &ldquo;transparent&rdquo; to the packet of information that is assumed to be represented by the POD in question.

In the application of mediate interest to this project, a POV corresponds to a computational system, while a POD corresponds to one of its states.  It is desirable to have a way of referring to the system as a whole, but in ways that are implicitly quantified by the relevant classes of states.  For example, I want to have a system of interpretation in place where it is possible to write <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime}j : x = y{}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> to mean that <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime}j ~\text{sets}~ x ~\text{equal to}~ y{}^{\prime\prime},\!</math> to read this as a statement about a system <math>j\!</math> and two of its stores <math>x\!</math> and <math>y,\!</math> and to understand this as a statement that implicitly refers to a set of states that makes it true.  Further, I want to recognize this statement as the active voice, attributed account, or authorized version of the more familiar, but passive, anonymous, or unavowed species of assignment statement <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime}x := y.{}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>

In the application of mediate interest to this project, a POV corresponds to a computational system, while a POD corresponds to one of its states.  It is desirable to have a way of referring to the system as a whole, but in ways that are implicitly quantified by the relevant classes of states.  For example, I want to have a system of interpretation in place where it is possible to write <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime}j : x = y{}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> to mean that <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime}j ~\text{sets}~ x ~\text{equal to}~ y{}^{\prime\prime},\!</math> to read this as a statement about a system <math>j\!</math> and two of its stores <math>x\!</math> and <math>y,\!</math> and to understand this as a statement that implicitly refers to a set of states that makes it true.  Further, I want to recognize this statement as the active voice, attributed account, or authorized version of the more familiar, but passive, anonymous, or unavowed species of assignment statement <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime}x := y{}^{\prime\prime}.\!</math>

The rudimentary parallels between these different distinctions should not be treated too rigidly, as a number of finer points about their true relationship remain to be sorted out.  The next few remarks are given just to provide a hint of what is involved.

The rudimentary parallels between these different distinctions should not be treated too rigidly, as a number of finer points about their true relationship remain to be sorted out.  The next few remarks are given just to provide a hint of what is involved.

Nevertheless, it is important to appreciate that all of these distinctions can become increasingly and divergently relativized as higher orders of reflection on the initial domain of objects turn wider circles of signs around it and heap higher towers of ideas upon it.  When this happens, any initial portion of the objective and lower order syntactic domains can form the matter of a thought, while any final portion of the higher order syntactic domains can embody the manner of a thought.

Nevertheless, it is important to appreciate that all of these distinctions can become increasingly and divergently relativized as higher orders of reflection on the initial domain of objects turn wider circles of signs around it and heap higher towers of ideas upon it.  When this happens, any initial portion of the objective and lower order syntactic domains can form the matter of a thought, while any final portion of the higher order syntactic domains can embody the manner of a thought.

Here is the critical point.  A conceptual distinction is not absolute, but relative to the POV that sees it, makes it, draws it, or uses it.  Indeed, one of the reasons for introducing the concept of a POV is to formalize this general insight and thereby to permit reflection on specific POV's.  But the intention of this move is to include any distinction that can be made in the process of an inquiry and found essential to its progress.  Accordingly, the aim of this insight marks an intention to comprehend, not just the distinctions between previously identified predicates, like the attributes "dubious" and "certain" already mentioned, but also any future distinctions that might be discovered as necessary to inquiry.  Almost immediately, for instance, the distinction just made by way of formalizing the concept of a POV, between the "propositions at" and the "propositions about" a POV, falls into the category of distinctions in question, at least, put under examination for the purposes of a review.

Here is the critical point.  A conceptual distinction is not absolute, but relative to the POV that sees it, makes it, draws it, or uses it.  Indeed, one of the reasons for introducing the concept of a POV is to formalize this general insight and thereby to permit reflection on specific POVs.  But the intention of this move is to include any distinction that can be made in the process of an inquiry and found essential to its progress.  Accordingly, the aim of this insight marks an intention to comprehend, not just the distinctions between previously identified predicates, like the attributes ''dubious'' and ''certain'' already mentioned, but also any future distinctions that might be discovered as necessary to inquiry.  Almost immediately, for instance, the distinction just made by way of formalizing the concept of a POV, between the ''propositions at'' and the ''propositions about'' a POV, falls into the category of distinctions in question, at least, put under examination for the purposes of a review.

Consciousness is a movement which continually annihilates its starting point and can guarantee itself only at the end.  In other words, it is something that has meaning only in later figures, since the meaning of a given figure is deferred until the appearance of a new figure.

Consciousness is a movement which continually annihilates its starting point and can guarantee itself only at the end.  In other words, it is something that has meaning only in later figures, since the meaning of a given figure is deferred until the appearance of a new figure.

Paul Ricoeur, The Conflict of Interpretations, [Ric, 113]

Paul Ricoeur, The Conflict of Interpretations, [Ric, 113]