Changes

In the next three subsections after this one the focus returns to the separate levels of object structure, starting with the highest level of specification and treating the supporting levels in order of increasing detail.  At each stage, the developing tools are applied to the analysis of concrete problems that arise in trying to clarify the structure and function of sign relations.  For the present task, elaborations of this perspective are kept within the bounds of what is essential to deal with the example of A and B.

In the next three subsections after this one the focus returns to the separate levels of object structure, starting with the highest level of specification and treating the supporting levels in order of increasing detail.  At each stage, the developing tools are applied to the analysis of concrete problems that arise in trying to clarify the structure and function of sign relations.  For the present task, elaborations of this perspective are kept within the bounds of what is essential to deal with the example of A and B.

As always, my use of the word ''object'' derives from the stock of the Greek root ''pragma'', which captures all the senses needed to suggest the stability of concern and the dedication to purpose that are forever bound up in the constitution of objects and the institution of objectives.  What it implies is that every object, objective, or objectivity is always somebody's object, objective, or objectivity.

My use of the word ''object'' derives from the stock of the Greek root ''pragma'', which captures all the senses needed to suggest the stability of concern and the dedication to purpose that are forever bound up in the constitution of objects and the institution of objectives.  What it implies is that every object, objective, or objectivity is always somebody's object, objective, or objectivity.

In other words, objectivity is always a matter of interpretation.  It is concerned with and quantified by the magnitude of the consensus that a matter is bound to have at the end of inquiry, but in no way does this diminish or dismiss the fact that the fated determination is something on which any particular collection of current opinions are granted to differ.  In principle, there begins to be a degree of objectivity as soon as something becomes an object to somebody, and the issue of whether this objective waxes or wanes in time is bound up with the number of observers that are destined to concur on it.

In other words, objectivity is always a matter of interpretation.  It is concerned with and quantified by the magnitude of the consensus that a matter is bound to have at the end of inquiry, but in no way does this diminish or dismiss the fact that the fated determination is something on which any particular collection of current opinions are granted to differ.  In principle, there begins to be a degree of objectivity as soon as something becomes an object to somebody, and the issue of whether this objective waxes or wanes in time is bound up with the number of observers that are destined to concur on it.

Consequently, analyses of objects and syntheses of objects are always analyses and syntheses to somebody.  Both modes of approaching the constitutions of objects lead to the sorts of approximation that are appropriate to particular agents and able to be appropriated by whole communities of interpretation.  By way of relief, on occasions when this motive of consistency hobbles discussion too severely, I will resort to using chimeras like ''object-analytic'' and ''object-synthetic'', paying the price of biasing the constitution of objects in one direction or another.

Consequently, analyses of objects and syntheses of objects are always analyses and syntheses to somebody.  Both modes of approaching the constitutions of objects lead to the sorts of approximation that are appropriate to particular agents and able to be appropriated by whole communities of interpretation.  By way of relief, on occasions when this motive of consistency hobbles discussion too severely, I will resort to using chimeras like ''object-analytic'' and ''object-synthetic'', paying the price of biasing the constitution of objects in one direction or another.

In this project I would like to treat the difference between construction and deconstruction as being more or less synonymous with the contrast between synthesis and analysis, but doing this without the introduction of too much distortion requires the intervention of a further distinction.  Therefore, let it be recognized that all orientations to the constitutions of objects can be pursued in both ''regimented'' and ''radical'' fashions.

In this project I would like to treat the difference between construction and deconstruction as being more or less synonymous with the contrast between synthesis and analysis, but doing this without the introduction of too much distortion requires the intervention of a further distinction.  Therefore, let it be recognized that all orientations to the constitutions of objects can be pursued in both ''regimented'' and ''radical'' fashions.

In the weaker senses of the terms, analysis and synthesis work within a preset and limited regime of objects, construing each object as being composed from a fixed inventory of stock constituents.  In the stronger senses, contracting for the application of these terms places a more strenuous demand on the would-be construer.

In the weaker senses of the terms, analysis and synthesis work within a preset and limited regime of objects, construing each object as being composed from a fixed inventory of stock constituents.  In the stronger senses, contracting for the application of these terms places a more strenuous demand on the would-be construer.