Changes

Readers who object to the anthropomorphism or the approximation of these statements can replace every occurrence of the verb ''thinks'' with the phrase ''interprets … as'', or even the circumlocution ''acts in every formally relevant way as if'', changing what must be changed elsewhere.  For the moment, I am not concerned with the exact order of reflective sensitivity that goes into these interpretive linkages, but only with a rough outline of the pragmatic equivalence classes that are afforded by the potential conduct of their agents.

Readers who object to the anthropomorphism or the approximation of these statements can replace every occurrence of the verb ''thinks'' with the phrase ''interprets … as'', or even the circumlocution ''acts in every formally relevant way as if'', changing what must be changed elsewhere.  For the moment, I am not concerned with the exact order of reflective sensitivity that goes into these interpretive linkages, but only with a rough outline of the pragmatic equivalence classes that are afforded by the potential conduct of their agents.

In the discussion of the dialogue between ''A'' and ''B'', it was allowed that the same signs "''A''" and "''B''" could reference the different categories of things they name with a deliberate duality and a systematic ambiguity.  Used informally as a part of the peripheral discussion, they indicate the entirety of the sign relations themselves.  Used formally within the focal dialogue, they denote the objects of two particular sign relations.  In just this way, or an elaboration of it, the signs "''j''" and "''k''" can have their meanings extended to encompass both the objective motifs (OM's) that inform and regulate experience and the object experiences (OE's) that fill out and substantiate their forms.

In the discussion of the dialogue between <math>A\!</math> and <math>B\!</math> it was allowed that the same signs <math>^{\backprime\backprime} A ^{\prime\prime}</math> and <math>^{\backprime\backprime} B ^{\prime\prime}</math> could reference the different categories of things they name with a deliberate duality and a systematic ambiguity.  Used informally as a part of the peripheral discussion, they indicate the entirety of the sign relations themselves.  Used formally within the focal dialogue, they denote the objects of two particular sign relations.  In just this way, or an elaboration of it, the signs <math>^{\backprime\backprime} j ^{\prime\prime}</math> and <math>^{\backprime\backprime} k ^{\prime\prime}</math> can have their meanings extended to encompass both the objective motifs that inform and regulate experience and the object experiences that fill out and substantiate their forms.

=====1.3.4.16.  The Integration of Frameworks=====

=====1.3.4.16.  The Integration of Frameworks=====