Changes

We began, as always, 'in mudias res', in that irritatingly doubtful state of "booming buzzing confusion" that clued us in mostly to the anterior projection of William James' inciteful ''Psychology'' and we woke into a stream of consciousness staring at the appended picture of a "muddled sign relation" Q = !O!x!S!x!I!.

We began, as always, 'in mudias res', in that irritatingly doubtful state of "booming buzzing confusion" that clued us in mostly to the anterior projection of William James' inciteful ''Psychology'' and we woke into a stream of consciousness staring at the appended picture of a "muddled sign relation" Q = !O!x!S!x!I!.

<font face="courier new"><pre>

<font face="courier new"><pre>

o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o

o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o

o-----------------------------------------------------------o

o-----------------------------------------------------------o

</pre></font>

</pre></font>

There are many ways that a muddle can resolve itself, if you'll excuse the animistical sympathetic fallacy of yielding the muddle credit for its own resolution.

There are many ways that a muddle can resolve itself, if you'll excuse the animistical sympathetic fallacy of yielding the muddle credit for its own resolution.

A long time before people had their minds quite set on our present notions of set theory, they used to speak of "general denotation" or "plural reference", in which a sign was related to a manifold variety of objects, whether "equivocally", in different senses, or "univocally, in the same sense, connotation, or definition of the sign (for example, the term or the word) in question, very roughly as might be suggested by the following Figure:

A long time before people had their minds quite set on our present notions of set theory, they used to speak of "general denotation" or "plural reference", in which a sign was related to a manifold variety of objects, whether "equivocally", in different senses, or "univocally, in the same sense, connotation, or definition of the sign (for example, the term or the word) in question, very roughly as might be suggested by the following Figure:

<font face="courier new"><pre>

<font face="courier new"><pre>

o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o

o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o

o-----------------------------------------------------------o

o-----------------------------------------------------------o

</pre></font>

</pre></font>

So this is one sort of pattern of highlights, reinforcement, or saliency that we often find spontaneously generating itself and emerging from the muddle like some dragonfly from a pond's muck.

So this is one sort of pattern of highlights, reinforcement, or saliency that we often find spontaneously generating itself and emerging from the muddle like some dragonfly from a pond's muck.

The roughly dual pattern of pregnance comes soon to mind, where this would show something like the next arrangement of emphases.

The roughly dual pattern of pregnance comes soon to mind, where this would show something like the next arrangement of emphases.

<font face="courier new"><pre>

<font face="courier new"><pre>

o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o

o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o

o-----------------------------------------------------------o

o-----------------------------------------------------------o

</pre></font>

</pre></font>

This is a genroic type of a motif that we shall find to be of extremely fruitful use again and again, where a bunch of signs ripens and falls into various and sundry "equivalence classes", either because they all denote the same object or because they all connote one another, or most happily of all, both together. These are known as "referential equivalence classes" (REC's)and "semiotic equivalence classes" (SEC's), respectively.

This is a generic type of a motif that we shall find to be of extremely fruitful use again and again, where a bunch of signs ripens and falls into various and sundry "equivalence classes", either because they all denote the same object or because they all connote one another, or most happily of all, both together. These are known as "referential equivalence classes" (REC's)and "semiotic equivalence classes" (SEC's), respectively.

===Incidental Note 6===

===Incidental Note 6===