Changes

=====1.3.4.5. Taking Stock=====

=====1.3.4.5. Taking Stock=====

So far, my discussion of the discussion between A and B, in the picture that it gives of sign relations and their connection to the imagined processes of interpretation and inquiry, can best be described as fragmentary.  In the story of A and B, a sample of typical language use has been drawn from the context of informal discussion and partially formalized in the guise of two independent sign relations, but no unified conception of the commonly understood interpretive practices in such a situation has yet been drafted.

So far, my discussion of the discussion between <math>\text{A}</math> and <math>\text{B}</math>, in the picture that it gives of sign relations and their connection to the imagined processes of interpretation and inquiry, can best be described as fragmentary.  In the story of <math>\text{A}</math> and <math>\text{B}</math>, a sample of typical language use has been drawn from the context of informal discussion and partially formalized in the guise of two independent sign relations, but no unified conception of the commonly understood interpretive practices in such a situation has yet been drafted.

It seems like a good idea to pause at this point and reflect on the state of understanding that has been reached.  In order to motivate further developments it will be useful to inventory two types of shortfall in the present state of discussion, the first having to do with the defects of my present discussion in revealing the relevant attributes of even so simple an example as the one I used to begin, the second having to do with the defects that this species of example exhibits within the genus of sign relations it is intended to illustrate.

It seems like a good idea to pause at this point and reflect on the state of understanding that has been reached.  In order to motivate further developments it will be useful to inventory two types of shortfall in the present state of discussion, the first having to do with the defects of my present discussion in revealing the relevant attributes of even so simple an example as the one I used to begin, the second having to do with the defects that this species of example exhibits within the genus of sign relations it is intended to illustrate.

As a general schema, I describe these respective limitations as the ''rhetorical'' and the ''objective'' defects that a discussion can have in addressing its intended object.  The immediate concern is to remedy the insufficiencies of analysis that affect the treatment of the current case.  The overarching task is to address the atypically simplistic features of this example as it falls within the class of sign relations that are relevant to actual inquiry.

As a general schema, I describe these respective limitations as the ''rhetorical'' and the ''objective'' defects that a discussion can have in addressing its intended object.  The immediate concern is to remedy the insufficiencies of analysis that affect the treatment of the current case.  The overarching task is to address the atypically simplistic features of this example as it falls within the class of sign relations that are relevant to actual inquiry.

The next few subsections will be concerned with the most problematic features of the A and B dialogue, especially with the sorts of difficulties that are clues to significant deficits in theory and technique, and that point out directions for future improvements.

The next few subsections will be concerned with the most problematic features of the <math>\text{A}</math> and <math>\text{B}</math> dialogue, especially with the sorts of difficulties that are clues to significant deficits in theory and technique, and that point out directions for future improvements.

=====1.3.4.6. The "Meta" Question=====

=====1.3.4.6. The "Meta" Question=====