Changes

What does appear in one of these Tables?  It is not the objects that appear under the ''Object'' heading, but only the signs of these objects.  It is not even the signs and interpretants themselves that appear under the ''Sign'' and ''Interpretant'' headings, but only the remoter signs of them that are formed by quotation.  The unformalized sign relation in which these signs of objects, signs of signs, and signs of interpretants have their role as such is not the one Tabled, but another one that operates behind the scenes to bring its image and intent to the reader.

What does appear in one of these Tables?  It is not the objects that appear under the ''Object'' heading, but only the signs of these objects.  It is not even the signs and interpretants themselves that appear under the ''Sign'' and ''Interpretant'' headings, but only the remoter signs of them that are formed by quotation.  The unformalized sign relation in which these signs of objects, signs of signs, and signs of interpretants have their role as such is not the one Tabled, but another one that operates behind the scenes to bring its image and intent to the reader.

To understand what the Table is meant to convey the reader has to participate in the informal and more accessory sign relation in order to follow its indications to the intended and more accessible sign relation.  As logical or mathematical objects, the sign relations A and B do not exist in the medium of their Tables but are represented there by dint of the relevant structural properties that they share with these Tables.  As fictional characters, the interpretive agents A and B do not exist in a uniquely literal sense but serve as typical literary figures to convey the intended formal account, standing in for concrete experiences with language use the likes of which are familiar to writer and reader alike.

To understand what the Table is meant to convey the reader has to participate in the informal and more accessory sign relation in order to follow its indications to the intended and more accessible sign relation.  As logical or mathematical objects, the sign relations A and B do not exist in the medium of their Tables but are represented there by dint of the relevant structural properties that they share with these Tables.  As fictional characters, the interpretive agents A and B do not exist in a uniquely literal sense but serve as typical literary figures to convey the intended formal account, standing in for concrete experiences with language use the likes of which are familiar to writer and reader alike.

Taking up these challenges provides a clue as to how a sign relation can appear to be ''nearly objective'', ''moderately independent'', or ''relatively composite'', all within the medium of a particular framework for analysis and interpretation.  Careful inspection of the context of definition reveals that it is not really the supposedly frame-free relations of properties and instances that suffice to compose the indexical connection.  It is not enough that the separate links exist in principle to make something a property of an instance of something.  In order to constitute a genuine sign relation, indexical or otherwise, each link must be recognized to exist by one and the same interpreter.

Taking up these challenges provides a clue as to how a sign relation can appear to be ''nearly objective'', ''moderately independent'', or ''relatively composite'', all within the medium of a particular framework for analysis and interpretation.  Careful inspection of the context of definition reveals that it is not really the supposedly frame-free relations of properties and instances that suffice to compose the indexical connection.  It is not enough that the separate links exist in principle to make something a property of an instance of something.  In order to constitute a genuine sign relation, indexical or otherwise, each link must be recognized to exist by one and the same interpreter.

From this point of view, the object is considered to be something in the external world and the index is considered to be something that touches on the interpreter's experience, both of which subsume, though perhaps in different senses, the object instance (OI) that mediates their actual connection.  Although the respective subsumptions, of OI to object and of OI to index, can appear to fall at first glance only within the reach of divergent senses, both must appeal for their eventual realization to a common sense, one that rests within the grasp of a single interpreter.  Apparently then, the object instance is the sort of entity that can contribute to generating both the object and the experience, in this way connecting the diverse abstractions called ''objects'' and ''indices''.

From this point of view, the object is considered to be something in the external world and the index is considered to be something that touches on the interpreter's experience, both of which subsume, though perhaps in different senses, the object instance (OI) that mediates their actual connection.  Although the respective subsumptions, of OI to object and of OI to index, can appear to fall at first glance only within the reach of divergent senses, both must appeal for their eventual realization to a common sense, one that rests within the grasp of a single interpreter.  Apparently then, the object instance is the sort of entity that can contribute to generating both the object and the experience, in this way connecting the diverse abstractions called ''objects'' and ''indices''.

At this stage of analysis, what were originally regarded as real objects have become hypostatic abstractions, extended as generic entities over classes of more transient objects, their instantiating actualizations.  In this setting, a real object is now analogous to an extended property or a generative predicate, whose extension generates the trajectory of its momentary instances or the locus of its points in actual existence.

At this stage of analysis, what were originally regarded as real objects have become hypostatic abstractions, extended as generic entities over classes of more transient objects, their instantiating actualizations.  In this setting, a real object is now analogous to an extended property or a generative predicate, whose extension generates the trajectory of its momentary instances or the locus of its points in actual existence.

Persisting in this form of analysis appears to lead discussion to levels of existence that are in one way or another more real, more determinate, in a word, more objective than its original objects.  If only a particular way of pursuing this form of analysis could be established as reaching a truly fundamental level of existence, then reason could not object to speaking of objects of objects, and even invoking the ultimate objects of objects, meaning the unique atoms at the base of the hierarchy that is formed by the descent of objects.

Persisting in this form of analysis appears to lead discussion to levels of existence that are in one way or another more real, more determinate, in a word, more objective than its original objects.  If only a particular way of pursuing this form of analysis could be established as reaching a truly fundamental level of existence, then reason could not object to speaking of objects of objects, and even invoking the ultimate objects of objects, meaning the unique atoms at the base of the hierarchy that is formed by the descent of objects.