12,080
edits
Changes
Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Information = Comprehension × Extension (view source)
Revision as of 04:32, 14 May 2013
, 04:32, 14 May 2013→Commentary Work Note 3: center figures
Here is the rougher draft of the two, a diptych impaneled of an object fold and a sign fold, an interpretant being, after all, just another passing moment in the life cycle of a sign, and so there is an object ''o'', with its intensions ''p ''through ''q'', collectively constellating the comprehension of any sign ''s''<sub>''k''</sub>, above the instances, instantiations, or instants ''i'' through ''j'' of the object ''o'', aggregatively constituting the extension of any sign ''s''<sub>''k''</sub> that is said to denote ''o'' or its plurality below.
Here is the rougher draft of the two, a diptych impaneled of an object fold and a sign fold, an interpretant being, after all, just another passing moment in the life cycle of a sign, and so there is an object ''o'', with its intensions ''p ''through ''q'', collectively constellating the comprehension of any sign ''s''<sub>''k''</sub>, above the instances, instantiations, or instants ''i'' through ''j'' of the object ''o'', aggregatively constituting the extension of any sign ''s''<sub>''k''</sub> that is said to denote ''o'' or its plurality below.
{| align="center" cellspacing="6" style="text-align:center; width:70%"
|
<font face="courier new"><pre>
<font face="courier new"><pre>
o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
</pre></font>
</pre></font>
|}
I should mention, in no uncertain terms, that Peirce's present account does not yet count this ''abstract hypostasis'' or ''hypostatic object'' ''o'' in any explicit way, though I think it is inherent in the very form of his thinking. So let us keep an eye out, as we proceed with the story, for when, if ever, this particular character first treads on the scene.
I should mention, in no uncertain terms, that Peirce's present account does not yet count this ''abstract hypostasis'' or ''hypostatic object'' ''o'' in any explicit way, though I think it is inherent in the very form of his thinking. So let us keep an eye out, as we proceed with the story, for when, if ever, this particular character first treads on the scene.
For future reference, I will go ahead and post here this advance notice of what may well be the next stage in the developmental differentiation of this, my embyronic autopoetics, but let's just see what we shall see.
For future reference, I will go ahead and post here this advance notice of what may well be the next stage in the developmental differentiation of this, my embyronic autopoetics, but let's just see what we shall see.
{| align="center" cellspacing="6" style="text-align:center; width:70%"
|
<font face="courier new"><pre>
<font face="courier new"><pre>
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
</pre></font>
</pre></font>
|}
===Commentary Work Note 4===
===Commentary Work Note 4===