Changes

3,468 bytes added , 15:14, 15 April 2017

Undo revision 467759 by Jon Awbrey (talk) what a mess

Line 7: Line 7:

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 3|Part 3]]

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 4|Part 4]]

+

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 5|Part 5]]

+

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 6|Part 6]]

+

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 7|Part 7]]

+

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 8|Part 8]]

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Appendices|Appendices]]

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : References|References]]

Line 63: Line 67:

The closely allied techniques of task analysis and software development that are known as ''step-wise refinement'' and ''top-down programming'' in computer science (Wirth 1976, 49, 303) have a long ancestry in logic and philosophy, going back to a strategy for establishing or discharging contextual definitions known as ''paraphrasis''. All of these methods are founded on the idea of providing meaning for operational specifications, ''definitions in use'', ''alleged descriptions'', or ''incomplete symbols''. No excessive generosity with the resources of meaning is intended, though. In practice, a larger share of the routine is spent detecting meaningless fictions rather than discovering meaningful concepts.

−

'''Paraphrasis.''' "A method of accounting for fictions by explaining various purported terms away" (Quine, in Van Heijenoort, 216). See also (Whitehead and Russell, in Van Heijenoort, ~~217–223~~).

+

'''Paraphrasis.''' “A method of accounting for fictions by explaining various purported terms away” (Quine, in Van Heijenoort, 216). See also (Whitehead and Russell, in Van Heijenoort, 217–223).

'''Synthesis.''' Regard computer programs as implementations of hypothetical or postulated faculties. Within the framework of experimental research, programs can serve as descriptive, modal, or normative hypotheses, that is, conjectures about how a process is actually accomplished in nature, speculations as to how it might be done in principle, or explorations of how it might be done better in the medium of technological extensions.

Line 71: Line 75:

=====1.1.2.3. Reprise of Methods=====

−

In summary, the whole array of methods will be typical of the top-down strategies used in artificial intelligence research (AIR), involving the conceptual and operational analysis of higher-order cognitive capacities with an eye toward the modeling, grounding, and support of these faculties in the form of effective computer programs. The toughest part of this discipline is in making sure that one does "come down", that is, in finding guarantees that the analytic reagents and synthetic apparatus that one applies are actually effective, reducing the fat of speculation into something that will wash.

+

In summary, the whole array of methods will be typical of the top-down strategies used in artificial intelligence research (AIR), involving the conceptual and operational analysis of higher-order cognitive capacities with an eye toward the modeling, grounding, and support of these faculties in the form of effective computer programs. The toughest part of this discipline is in making sure that one does “come down”, that is, in finding guarantees that the analytic reagents and synthetic apparatus that one applies are actually effective, reducing the fat of speculation into something that will wash.

Finally, I ought to observe a hedge against betting too much on this or any neat arrangement of research stages. It should not be forgotten that the flourishing of inquiry evolves its own forms of organic integrity. No matter how one tries to tease them apart, the various tendrils of research tend to interleave and intertwine as they will.

Line 93: Line 97:

===1.2. Onus of the Project : No Way But Inquiry===

−

At the beginning of inquiry there is nothing for me to work with but the actual constellation of doubts and beliefs that I have at the moment. Beliefs that operate at the deepest levels can be so taken for granted that they rarely if ever obtrude on awareness. Doubts that oppress in the most obvious ways are still known only as debits and droughts, as the absence of something, one knows not what, and a desire that obliges one only to try. Obscure forms of oversight provide an impulse to replenish the condition of privation but never out of necessity afford a sense of direction. One senses there ought to be a way out at once, or ordered ways to overcome obstruction, or organized or otherwise ways to obviate one's opacity of omission and rescue a secure motivation from the array of conflicting possibilities. In the roughest sense of the word, any action that does in fact lead out of this onerous state can be regarded as a form of "inquiry". Only later, in moments of more leisurely inquiry, when it comes down to classifying and comparing the manner of escapes that can be recounted, does it become possible to recognize the ways in which certain general patterns of strategy are routinely more successful in the long run than others.

+

At the beginning of inquiry there is nothing for me to work with but the actual constellation of doubts and beliefs that I have at the moment. Beliefs that operate at the deepest levels can be so taken for granted that they rarely if ever obtrude on awareness. Doubts that oppress in the most obvious ways are still known only as debits and droughts, as the absence of something, one knows not what, and a desire that obliges one only to try. Obscure forms of oversight provide an impulse to replenish the condition of privation but never out of necessity afford a sense of direction. One senses there ought to be a way out at once, or ordered ways to overcome obstruction, or organized or otherwise ways to obviate one's opacity of omission and rescue a secure motivation from the array of conflicting possibilities. In the roughest sense of the word, any action that does in fact lead out of this onerous state can be regarded as a form of “inquiry”. Only later, in moments of more leisurely inquiry, when it comes down to classifying and comparing the manner of escapes that can be recounted, does it become possible to recognize the ways in which certain general patterns of strategy are routinely more successful in the long run than others.

====1.2.1. A Modulating Prelude====

Line 131: Line 135:

Compositions of ''faculties'' are indicated by concatenating their names, posed in the sense that the right-indicated faculty applies to the left-indicated faculty, in the following form:

−

:: <math>f \cdot g</math>

+

:: <math>f \cdot g\!</math>

A notation of the form

Line 141: Line 145:

The coset notation

−

:: <math>F \cdot G</math>

+

:: <math>F \cdot G\!</math>

indicates a class of ''faculties'' of the form

−

:: <math>f \cdot g</math>,

+

:: <math>f \cdot g\!</math>,

with <math>f\!</math> in <math>F\!</math> and <math>g\!</math> in <math>G\!</math>.

Line 151: Line 155:

Notations like

−

:: <math>\{ ? \} ~,~ \{ ? , ? \} ~,~ \{ ? , ? , ?\} ~,~ \ldots</math>

+

:: <math>\{ ? \} ~,~ \{ ? , ? \} ~,~ \{ ? , ? , ?\} ~,~ \ldots\!</math>

serve as proxies for unknown components and indicate tentative analyses of faculties in question.

Line 159: Line 163:

If the faculty of inquiry is a coherent power, then it has an active or instrumental face, a passive or objective face, and a substantial body of connections between them.

−

:: <math>y = \{ ? \}</math>

+

:: <math>y = \{ ? \}\!</math>

In giving the current inquiry a reflexive cast, as inquiry into inquiry, I have brought inquiry face to face with itself, inditing it to apply its action in pursuing a knowledge of its passion.

−

:: <math>y_0 = y \cdot y = \{ ? \} \{ ? \}</math>

+

:: <math>y_0 = y \cdot y = \{ ? \} \{ ? \}\!</math>

If this juxtaposition of characters is to have a meaningful issue, then the fullness of its instrumental and objective aspects must have recourse to easier actions and simpler objects.

−

:: <math>y >\!\!= \{ ? , ? \}</math>

+

:: <math>y >\!\!= \{ ? , ? \}\!</math>

Looking for an edge on each face of inquiry, as a plausible option for beginning to apply one to the other, I find what seems a likely pair. I begin with an aspect of instrumental inquiry that is easy to do, namely ''discussion'', along with an aspect of objective inquiry that is unavoidable to discuss, namely ''formalization''.

−

:: <math>y >\!\!= \{ \operatorname{discussion} , \operatorname{formalization} \}</math>

+

:: <math>y >\!\!= \{ \operatorname{discussion} , \operatorname{formalization} \}\!</math>

In accord with this plan, the body of this section is devoted to a discussion of formalization.

−

:: <math>y_0 = y \cdot y >\!\!= \{ d , f \} \{ d , f \} >\!\!= \{ f \} \{ d \}</math>

+

:: <math>y_0 = y \cdot y >\!\!= \{ d , f \} \{ d , f \} >\!\!= \{ f \} \{ d \}\!</math>

====1.3.2. Discussion of Discussion====

Line 181: Line 185:

But first, I nearly skipped a step. Though it might present itself as an interruption, a topic so easy that I almost omitted it altogether deserves at least a passing notice.

−

:: <math>y_0 = y \cdot y >\!\!= \{ d , f \} \{ d , f \} >\!\!= \{ d \} \{ d \}</math>

+

:: <math>y_0 = y \cdot y >\!\!= \{ d , f \} \{ d , f \} >\!\!= \{ d \} \{ d \}\!</math>

Discussion is easy in general because its termination criterion is relaxed to the point of becoming otiose. A discussion of things in general can be pursued as an end in itself, with no consideration of any purpose but persevering in its current form, and this accounts for the virtually perpetual continuation of many a familiar and perennial discussion.

Line 196: Line 200:

# Examine every notion of the casual intuition that enters into the informal discussion and inquire into its qualifications as a potential candidate for formalization.

−

# Pay special attention to the nominal operations that are invoked to substantiate each tentative explanation of a critically important process. Often, but not infallibly, these can be detected appearing in the guise of "-ionized" terms, words ending in "-ion" that typically connote both a process and its result.

+

# Pay special attention to the nominal operations that are invoked to substantiate each tentative explanation of a critically important process. Often, but not infallibly, these can be detected appearing in the guise of “-ionized” terms, words ending in “-ion” that typically connote both a process and its result.

# Ask yourself, with regard to each postulant faculty in the current account, explicitly charged or otherwise, whether you can imagine any recipe, any program, any rule of procedure for carrying out the form, if not the substance, of what it does, or an aspect thereof.

Line 203: Line 207:

An immediate application of the above rules is presented here, in hopes of giving the reader a concrete illustration of their use in a ready example, but the issues raised can quickly diverge into yet another distracting digression, one not so easily brought under control as the discussion of discussion, but whose complexity probably approaches that of the entire task. Therefore, a partial adumbration of its character will have to suffice for the present.

−

:: <math>y_0 = y \cdot y >\!\!= \{ d , f \} \{ d , f \} >\!\!= \{ f \} \{ f \}</math>

+

:: <math>y_0 = y \cdot y >\!\!= \{ d , f \} \{ d , f \} >\!\!= \{ f \} \{ f \}\!</math>

To illustrate the formal charge by taking the present matter to task, the word ''formalization'' is itself exemplary of the ''-ionized'' terms falling under the charge, and so it can be lionized as the nominal head of a prospectively formal discussion. The reader has a right to object at this point that I have not described what particular action I intend to convey under the heading of ''formalization'', by no means enough to begin applying it to any term, much less itself. However, anyone can recognize on syntactic grounds that the word is an instance of the formal rule, purely from the character of its terminal ''-ion'', and this can be done aside from all clues about the particular meaning that I intend it to have at the end of formalization.

Line 217: Line 221:

The previous section took the concept of ''formalization'' as an example of a topic that a writer might try to translate from informal to formal discussion, perhaps as a way of clarifying the general concept to an optimal degree, or perhaps as a way of communicating a particular concept of it to a reader. In either case the formalization process, that aims to translate a concept from informal to formal discussion, is itself mediated by a form of discussion: (1) that interpreters conduct as a part of their ongoing monologue with themselves, or (2) that a writer (speaker) conducts in real or imagined dialogue with a reader (hearer). In view of this, I see no harm in letting the concept of discussion be stretched to cover all attempted processes of formalization.

−

:: <math>F \subseteq D</math>

+

:: <math>F \subseteq D\!</math>

−

In this section, I step back from the example of ''formalization'' and consider the general task of clarifying and communicating concepts by means of a properly directed discussion. Let this kind of ''motivated'' or ''measured'' discussion be referred to as a ''meditation'', that is, "a discourse intended to express its author's reflections or to guide others in contemplation" (Webster's). The motive of a meditation is to mediate a certain object or intention, namely, the system of concepts intended for clarification or communication. The measure of a meditation is a system of values that permits its participants to tell how close they are to achieving its object. The letter "M" will be used to annotate this form of meditation.

+

In this section, I step back from the example of ''formalization'' and consider the general task of clarifying and communicating concepts by means of a properly directed discussion. Let this kind of ''motivated'' or ''measured'' discussion be referred to as a ''meditation'', that is, “a discourse intended to express its author's reflections or to guide others in contemplation” (Webster's). The motive of a meditation is to mediate a certain object or intention, namely, the system of concepts intended for clarification or communication. The measure of a meditation is a system of values that permits its participants to tell how close they are to achieving its object. The letter “M” will be used to annotate this form of meditation.

−

:: <math>F \subseteq M \subseteq D</math>

+

:: <math>F \subseteq M \subseteq D\!</math>

This brings the discussion around to considering the intentional objects of measured discussions and the qualifications of a writer so motivated. Just what is involved in achieving the object of a motivated discussion? Can these intentions be formalized?

−

:: <math>y_0 = y \cdot y >\!\!= \{ d , f \} \{d , f \} >\!\!= \{ d \} \{ f \}</math>

+

:: <math>y_0 = y \cdot y >\!\!= \{ d , f \} \{d , f \} >\!\!= \{ d \} \{ f \}\!</math>

* The writer's task is not to create meaning from nothing, but to construct a relation from the typical meanings that are available in ordinary discourse to the particular meanings that are intended to be the effects of a particular discussion.

Line 304: Line 308:

# The typical POI comes from natural sources and casual conduct. It is not formalized in itself but only in the form of its image or model, and just to the extent that aspects of its structure and function are captured by a formal MOI. But the richness of any natural phenomenon or realistic process seldom falls within the metes and bounds of any final or finite formula.

−

# Beyond the initial stages of investigation, the MOI is postulated as a completely formalized object, or is quickly on its way to becoming one. As such, it serves as a pivotal fulcrum and a point of application poised between the undefined reaches of ''phenomena'' and ''noumena'', respectively, terms that serve more as directions of pointing than as denotations of entities. What enables the MOI to grasp these directions is the quite felicitous mathematical circumsatnce that there can be well-defined and finite relations between entities that are infinite and even indefinite in themselves. Indeed, exploiting this handle on infinity is the main trick of all computational models and effective procedures. It is how a ''finitely informed creature'' can "make infinite use of finite means". Thus, my reason for calling the MOI cardinal or pivotal is that it forms a model in two senses, loosely analogical and more strictly logical, integrating twin roles of the model concept in a single focus.

+

# Beyond the initial stages of investigation, the MOI is postulated as a completely formalized object, or is quickly on its way to becoming one. As such, it serves as a pivotal fulcrum and a point of application poised between the undefined reaches of ''phenomena'' and ''noumena'', respectively, terms that serve more as directions of pointing than as denotations of entities. What enables the MOI to grasp these directions is the quite felicitous mathematical circumsatnce that there can be well-defined and finite relations between entities that are infinite and even indefinite in themselves. Indeed, exploiting this handle on infinity is the main trick of all computational models and effective procedures. It is how a ''finitely informed creature'' can “make infinite use of finite means”. Thus, my reason for calling the MOI cardinal or pivotal is that it forms a model in two senses, loosely analogical and more strictly logical, integrating twin roles of the model concept in a single focus.

# Finally, the IFs and the SOIs always remain partly out of sight, caught up in various stages of explicit notice between casual informality and partial formalization, with no guarantee or even much likelihood of a completely articulate formulation being forthcoming or even possible. Still, it is usually worth the effort to try lifting one edge or another of these frameworks and backdrops into the light, at least for a time.

Line 311: Line 315:

To the extent that their structures and functions can be discussed at all, it is likely that all of the formal entities that are destined to develop in this approach to inquiry will be instances of a class of [[triadic relation|three-place relation]]s called ''[[sign relation]]s''. At any rate, all of the formal structures that I have examined so far in this area have turned out to be easily converted to or ultimately grounded in sign relations. This class of triadic relations constitutes the main study of the ''pragmatic theory of signs'', a branch of logical philosophy devoted to understanding all types of symbolic representation and communication.

−

There is a close relationship between the pragmatic theory of signs and the pragmatic theory of inquiry. In fact, the correspondence between the two studies exhibits so many parallels and coincidences that it is often best to treat them as integral parts of one and the same subject. In a very real sense, inquiry is the process by which sign relations come to be established and continue to evolve. In other words, inquiry, "thinking" in its best sense, "is a term denoting the various ways in which things acquire significance" (Dewey). Thus, there is an active and intricate form of cooperation that needs to be appreciated and maintained between these converging modes of investigation. Its proper character is best understood by realizing that the theory of inquiry is adapted to study the developmental aspects of sign relations, a subject which the theory of signs is specialized to treat from structural and comparative points of view.

+

There is a close relationship between the pragmatic theory of signs and the pragmatic theory of inquiry. In fact, the correspondence between the two studies exhibits so many parallels and coincidences that it is often best to treat them as integral parts of one and the same subject. In a very real sense, inquiry is the process by which sign relations come to be established and continue to evolve. In other words, inquiry, “thinking” in its best sense, “is a term denoting the various ways in which things acquire significance” (Dewey). Thus, there is an active and intricate form of cooperation that needs to be appreciated and maintained between these converging modes of investigation. Its proper character is best understood by realizing that the theory of inquiry is adapted to study the developmental aspects of sign relations, a subject which the theory of signs is specialized to treat from structural and comparative points of view.

Because the examples in this section have been artificially constructed to be as simple as possible, their detailed elaboration can run the risk of trivializing the whole theory of sign relations. Still, these examples have subtleties of their own, and their careful treatment will serve to illustrate important issues in the general theory of signs.

Line 317: Line 321:

Imagine a discussion between two people, Ann and Bob, and attend only to that aspect of their interpretive practice that involves the use of the following nouns and pronouns: “Ann”, “Bob”, “I”, “you”.

−

:* The ''object domain'' of this discussion fragment is the set of two people <math>\{ \text{Ann}, \text{Bob} \}</math>.

+

:* The ''object domain'' of this discussion fragment is the set of two people <math>\{ \text{Ann}, \text{Bob} \}.\!</math>

−

:* The ''syntactic domain'' or the ''sign system'' of their discussion is limited to the set of four signs <math>\{ {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{Ann} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{Bob} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{I} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{you} {}^{\prime\prime} \}</math>.

+

:* The ''syntactic domain'' or the ''sign system'' of their discussion is limited to the set of four signs <math>\{ {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{Ann} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{Bob} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{I} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{you} {}^{\prime\prime} \}.\!</math>

In their discussion, Ann and Bob are not only the passive objects of nominative and accusative references but also the active interpreters of the language that they use. The ''system of interpretation'' (SOI) associated with each language user can be represented in the form of an individual [[triadic relation|three-place relation]] called the ''[[sign relation]]'' of that interpreter.

−

Understood in terms of its ''~~[[set theory|~~set-theoretic~~]] [[~~extension ~~(logic)|extension]]~~'', a sign relation <math>L\!</math> is a ''[[subset]]'' of a ''[[cartesian product]]'' <math>O \times S \times I</math>. Here, <math>O, S, I\!</math> are three sets that are known as the ''object domain'', the ''sign domain'', and the ''interpretant domain'', respectively, of the sign relation <math>L \subseteq O \times S \times I</math>.

+

Understood in terms of its ''set-theoretic extension'', a sign relation <math>L\!</math> is a ''subset'' of a ''cartesian product'' <math>O \times S \times I.\!</math> Here, <math>O, S, I\!</math> are three sets that are known as the ''object domain'', the ''sign domain'', and the ''interpretant domain'', respectively, of the sign relation <math>L \subseteq O \times S \times I.\!</math>

−

In general, the three domains of a sign relation can be any sets whatsoever, but the kinds of sign relations that are contemplated in a computational framework are usually constrained to having <math>I \subseteq S</math>. In this case, interpretants are just a special variety of signs, and this makes it convenient to lump signs and interpretants together into a single class called the ''syntactic domain''. In the forthcoming examples, <math>S\!</math> and <math>I\!</math> are identical as sets, so the very same elements manifest themselves in two different roles of the sign relations in question. When it is necessary to refer to the whole set of objects and signs in the union of the domains <math>O~~\!</math>~~, ~~<math>~~S~~\!</math>~~, ~~<math>~~I\!</math> for a given sign relation <math>L\!</math>, one may refer to this set as the ''World'' of <math>L\!</math> and write <math>W = W_L = O \cup S \cup I</math>.

+

In general, the three domains of a sign relation can be any sets whatsoever, but the kinds of sign relations that are contemplated in a computational framework are usually constrained to having <math>I \subseteq S\!</math>. In this case, interpretants are just a special variety of signs, and this makes it convenient to lump signs and interpretants together into a single class called the ''syntactic domain''. In the forthcoming examples, <math>S\!</math> and <math>I\!</math> are identical as sets, so the very same elements manifest themselves in two different roles of the sign relations in question. When it is necessary to refer to the whole set of objects and signs in the union of the domains <math>O, S, I\!</math> for a given sign relation <math>L,\!</math> one may refer to this set as the ''World'' of <math>L\!</math> and write <math>W = W_L = O \cup S \cup I.\!</math>

To facilitate an interest in the abstract structures of sign relations, and to keep the notations as brief as possible as the examples become more complicated, it serves to introduce the following general notations:

Line 363: Line 367:

|}

−

In the present example, <math>S = I = \text{Syntactic Domain}</math>.

+

In the present example, <math>S = I = \text{Syntactic Domain}\!</math>.

−

The sign relation associated with a given interpreter <math>J\!</math> is denoted <math>L_J</math> or <math>L(J)</math>. Tables 1 and 2 give the sign relations associated with the interpreters <math>\text{A}</math> and <math>\text{B}</math>, respectively, putting them in the form of ''[[relational ~~database]]s~~''. Thus, the rows of each Table list the ordered triples of the form <math>(o, s, i)</math> that make up the corresponding sign relations, <math>L_\text{A}, L_\text{B} \subseteq~~</math><math>~~O \times S \times I</math>. It is often tempting to use the same names for objects and for relations involving these objects, but it is best to avoid this in a first approach, taking up the issues that this practice raises after the less problematic features of these relations have been treated.

+

The sign relation associated with a given interpreter <math>J\!</math> is denoted <math>L_J\!</math> or <math>{L(J)}.\!</math> Tables 1 and 2 give the sign relations associated with the interpreters <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B},\!</math> respectively, putting them in the form of ''relational databases''. Thus, the rows of each Table list the ordered triples of the form <math>(o, s, i)\!</math> that make up the corresponding sign relations, <math>L_\text{A}, L_\text{B} \subseteq O \times S \times I.\!</math> It is often tempting to use the same names for objects and for relations involving these objects, but it is best to avoid this in a first approach, taking up the issues that this practice raises after the less problematic features of these relations have been treated.

{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:80%"

−

|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\text{Table 1.} ~~ \text{Sign Relation of Interpreter A}</math>

+

|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\text{Table 1.} ~~ \text{Sign Relation of Interpreter A}\!</math>

−

|- style="height:40px; background:~~#f0f0ff~~"

+

|- style="height:40px; background:ghostwhite"

−

| <math>\text{Object}</math>

+

| width="33%" | <math>\text{Object}\!</math>

−

| <math>\text{Sign}</math>

+

| width="33%" | <math>\text{Sign}\!</math>

−

| <math>\text{Interpretant}</math>

+

| width="33%" | <math>\text{Interpretant}\!</math>

|-

−

| ~~width~~="~~33%~~" |

+

| valign="bottom" |

<math>\begin{matrix}

\text{A}

Line 386: Line 390:

\text{A}

\end{matrix}</math>

−

| ~~width~~="~~33%~~" |

+

| valign="bottom" |

<math>\begin{matrix}

{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}

Line 396: Line 400:

{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}

\end{matrix}</math>

−

| ~~width~~="~~33%~~" |

+

| valign="bottom" |

<math>\begin{matrix}

{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}

Line 407: Line 411:

\end{matrix}</math>

|-

−

| ~~width~~="~~33%~~" |

+

| valign="bottom" |

<math>\begin{matrix}

\text{B}

Line 417: Line 421:

\text{B}

\end{matrix}</math>

−

| ~~width~~="~~33%~~" |

+

| valign="bottom" |

<math>\begin{matrix}

{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}

Line 427: Line 431:

{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}

\end{matrix}</math>

−

| ~~width~~="~~33%~~" |

+

| valign="bottom" |

<math>\begin{matrix}

{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}

Line 442: Line 446:

{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:80%"

−

|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\text{Table 2.} ~~ \text{Sign Relation of Interpreter B}</math>

+

|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\text{Table 2.} ~~ \text{Sign Relation of Interpreter B}~\!</math>

−

|- style="height:40px; background:~~#f0f0ff~~"

+

|- style="height:40px; background:ghostwhite"

−

| <math>\text{Object}</math>

+

| width="33%" | <math>\text{Object}\!</math>

−

| <math>\text{Sign}</math>

+

| width="33%" | <math>\text{Sign}\!</math>

−

| <math>\text{Interpretant}</math>

+

| width="33%" | <math>\text{Interpretant}\!</math>

|-

−

| ~~width~~="~~33%~~" |

+

| valign="bottom" |

<math>\begin{matrix}

\text{A}

Line 458: Line 462:

\text{A}

\end{matrix}</math>

−

| ~~width~~="~~33%~~" |

+

| valign="bottom" |

<math>\begin{matrix}

{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}

Line 468: Line 472:

{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}

\end{matrix}</math>

−

| ~~width~~="~~33%~~" |

+

| valign="bottom" |

<math>\begin{matrix}

{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}

Line 479: Line 483:

\end{matrix}</math>

|-

−

| ~~width~~="~~33%~~" |

+

| valign="bottom" |

<math>\begin{matrix}

\text{B}

Line 489: Line 493:

\text{B}

\end{matrix}</math>

−

| ~~width~~="~~33%~~" |

+

| valign="bottom" |

<math>\begin{matrix}

{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}

Line 499: Line 503:

{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}

\end{matrix}</math>

−

|

+

| valign="bottom" |

<math>\begin{matrix}

{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}

Line 513: Line 517:

−

These Tables codify a rudimentary level of interpretive practice for the agents <math>\text{A}</math> and <math>\text{B}</math> and provide a basis for formalizing the initial semantics that is appropriate to their common syntactic domain. Each row of a Table names an object and two co-referent signs, making up an ordered triple of the form <math>(o, s, i)</math> that is called an ''elementary relation'', that is, one element of the relation's set-theoretic extension.

+

These Tables codify a rudimentary level of interpretive practice for the agents <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math> and provide a basis for formalizing the initial semantics that is appropriate to their common syntactic domain. Each row of a Table names an object and two co-referent signs, making up an ordered triple of the form <math>(o, s, i)\!</math> that is called an ''elementary relation'', that is, one element of the relation's set-theoretic extension.

Already in this elementary context, there are several different meanings that might attach to the project of a ''formal semiotics'', or a formal theory of meaning for signs. In the process of discussing these alternatives, it is useful to introduce a few terms that are occasionally used in the philosophy of language to point out the needed distinctions.

Line 519: Line 523:

One aspect of semantics is concerned with the reference that a sign has to its object, which is called its ''denotation''. For signs in general, neither the existence nor the uniqueness of a denotation is guaranteed. Thus, the denotation of a sign can refer to a plural, a singular, or a vacuous number of objects. In the pragmatic theory of signs, these references are formalized as certain types of dyadic relations that are obtained by projection from the triadic sign relations.

−

The dyadic relation that constitutes the ''denotative component'' of a sign relation <math>L</math> is denoted <math>\operatorname{Den}(L)</math>. Information about the denotative component of semantics can be derived from <math>L</math> by taking its ''dyadic projection'' on the plane that is generated by the object domain and the sign domain, indicated by any one of the equivalent forms, <math>\operatorname{proj}_{OS} L</math>, <math>L_{OS}</math>, or <math>L_{12}</math>, and defined as follows:

+

The dyadic relation that constitutes the ''denotative component'' of a sign relation <math>L\!</math> is denoted <math>\operatorname{Den}(L).\!</math> Information about the denotative component of semantics can be derived from <math>L\!</math> by taking its ''dyadic projection'' on the plane that is generated by the object domain and the sign domain, indicated by any one of the equivalent forms, <math>\operatorname{proj}_{OS} L,\!</math> <math>L_{OS},\!</math> or <math>L_{12},\!</math> and defined as follows:

−

: <math>\operatorname{Den}(L) = \operatorname{proj}_{OS} L = L_{OS} = \{ (o, s) \in O \times S : (o, s, i) \in L ~\text{for some}~ i \in I \}</math>.

+

{| align="center" cellspacing="6" width="90%"

+

|

+

<math>\operatorname{Den}(L) = \operatorname{proj}_{OS} L = L_{OS} = \{ (o, s) \in O \times S : (o, s, i) \in L ~\text{for some}~ i \in I \}.\!</math>

+

|}

−

Looking to the denotative aspects of the present example, various rows of the Tables specify that <math>\text{A}</math> uses <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}</math> to denote <math>\text{A}</math> and <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}</math> to denote <math>\text{B}</math>, whereas <math>\text{B}</math> uses <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}</math> to denote <math>\text{B}</math> and <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}</math> to denote <math>\text{A}</math>. It is utterly amazing that even these impoverished remnants of natural language use have properties that quickly bring the usual prospects of formal semantics to a screeching halt.

+

Looking to the denotative aspects of the present example, various rows of the Tables specify that <math>\text{A}\!</math> uses <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> to denote <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> to denote <math>\text{B},\!</math> whereas <math>\text{B}\!</math> uses <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> to denote <math>\text{B}\!</math> and <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> to denote <math>\text{A}.\!</math> It is utterly amazing that even these impoverished remnants of natural language use have properties that quickly bring the usual prospects of formal semantics to a screeching halt.

The other dyadic aspects of semantics that might be considered concern the reference that a sign has to its interpretant and the reference that an interpretant has to its object. As before, either type of reference can be multiple, unique, or empty in its collection of terminal points, and both can be formalized as different types of dyadic relations that are obtained as planar projections of the triadic sign relations.

−

The connection that a sign makes to an interpretant is called its ''connotation''. In the general theory of sign relations, this aspect of semantics includes the references that a sign has to affects, concepts, impressions, intentions, mental ideas, and to the whole realm of an agent's mental states and allied activities, broadly encompassing intellectual associations, emotional impressions, motivational impulses, and real conduct. This complex ecosystem of references is unlikely ever to be mapped in much detail, much less completely formalized, but the tangible warp of its accumulated mass is commonly alluded to as the ''connotative'' import of language. Given a particular sign relation <math>L</math>, the dyadic relation that constitutes the ''connotative component'' of <math>L</math> is denoted <math>\operatorname{Con}(L)</math>.

+

The connection that a sign makes to an interpretant is called its ''connotation''. In the general theory of sign relations, this aspect of semantics includes the references that a sign has to affects, concepts, impressions, intentions, mental ideas, and to the whole realm of an agent's mental states and allied activities, broadly encompassing intellectual associations, emotional impressions, motivational impulses, and real conduct. This complex ecosystem of references is unlikely ever to be mapped in much detail, much less completely formalized, but the tangible warp of its accumulated mass is commonly alluded to as the ''connotative'' import of language. Given a particular sign relation <math>L,\!</math> the dyadic relation that constitutes the ''connotative component'' of <math>L\!</math> is denoted <math>\operatorname{Con}(L).\!</math>

The bearing that an interpretant has toward a common object of its sign and itself has no standard name. If an interpretant is considered to be a sign in its own right, then its independent reference to an object can be taken as belonging to another moment of denotation, but this omits the mediational character of the whole transaction.

Line 533: Line 540:

Given the service that interpretants supply in furnishing a locus for critical, reflective, and explanatory glosses on objective scenes and their descriptive texts, it is easy to regard them as ''annotations'' both of objects and of signs, but this function points in the opposite direction to what is needed in this connection. What does one call the inverse of the annotation function? More generally asked, what is the converse of the annotation relation?

−

In light of these considerations, I find myself still experimenting with terms to suit this last-mentioned dimension of semantics. On a trial basis, I refer to it as the ''ideational'', the ''intentional'', or the ''canonical'' component of the sign relation, and I provisionally refer to the reference of an interpretant sign to its object as its ''ideation'', its ''intention'', or its ''conation''. Given a particular sign relation <math>L</math>, the dyadic relation that constitutes the ''intentional component'' of <math>L</math> is denoted <math>\operatorname{Int}(L)</math>.

+

In light of these considerations, I find myself still experimenting with terms to suit this last-mentioned dimension of semantics. On a trial basis, I refer to it as the ''ideational'', the ''intentional'', or the ''canonical'' component of the sign relation, and I provisionally refer to the reference of an interpretant sign to its object as its ''ideation'', its ''intention'', or its ''conation''. Given a particular sign relation <math>L,\!</math> the dyadic relation that constitutes the ''intentional component'' of <math>L\!</math> is denoted <math>\operatorname{Int}(L).\!</math>

A full consideration of the connotative and intentional aspects of semantics would force a return to difficult questions about the true nature of the interpretant sign in the general theory of sign relations. It is best to defer these issues to a later discussion. Fortunately, omission of this material does not interfere with understanding the purely formal aspects of the present example.

Line 539: Line 546:

Formally, these new aspects of semantics present no additional problem:

−

The connotative component of a sign relation ''L'' can be formalized as its dyadic projection on the plane generated by the sign domain and the interpretant domain, defined as follows:

+

The connotative component of a sign relation <math>L\!</math> can be formalized as its dyadic projection on the plane generated by the sign domain and the interpretant domain, defined as follows:

−

: <math>\operatorname{Con}(L) = \operatorname{proj}_{SI} L = L_{SI} = \{ (s, i) \in S \times I : (o, s, i) \in L ~\text{for some}~ o \in O \}</math>.

+

{| align="center" cellspacing="6" width="90%"

+

|

+

<math>\operatorname{Con}(L) = \operatorname{proj}_{SI} L = L_{SI} = \{ (s, i) \in S \times I : (o, s, i) \in L ~\text{for some}~ o \in O \}.\!</math>

+

|}

−

The intentional component of semantics for a sign relation <math>L</math>, or its ''second moment of denotation'', is adequately captured by its dyadic projection on the plane generated by the object domain and interpretant domain, defined as follows:

+

The intentional component of semantics for a sign relation <math>L\!</math>, or its ''second moment of denotation'', is adequately captured by its dyadic projection on the plane generated by the object domain and interpretant domain, defined as follows:

−

: <math>\operatorname{Int}(L) = \operatorname{proj}_{OI} L = L_{OI} = \{ (o, i) \in O \times I : (o, s, i) \in L ~\text{for some}~ s \in S \}</math>.

+

{| align="center" cellspacing="6" width="90%"

+

|

+

<math>\operatorname{Int}(L) = \operatorname{proj}_{OI} L = L_{OI} = \{ (o, i) \in O \times I : (o, s, i) \in L ~\text{for some}~ s \in S \}.~\!</math>

+

|}

−

As it happens, the sign relations <math>L_\text{A}</math> and <math>L_\text{B}</math> in the present example are fully symmetric with respect to exchanging signs and interpretants, so all of the structure of <math>(L_\text{A})_{OS}</math> and <math>(L_\text{B})_{OS}</math> is merely echoed in <math>(L_\text{A})_{OI}</math> and <math>(L_\text{B})_{OI}</math>, respectively.

+

As it happens, the sign relations <math>L_\text{A}\!</math> and <math>L_\text{B}\!</math> in the present example are fully symmetric with respect to exchanging signs and interpretants, so all of the structure of <math>(L_\text{A})_{OS}\!</math> and <math>(L_\text{B})_{OS}\!</math> is merely echoed in <math>(L_\text{A})_{OI}\!</math> and <math>(L_\text{B})_{OI},~\!</math> respectively.

−

'''Note on notation.''' When there is only one sign relation <math>L_J = L(J)</math> associated with a given interpreter <math>J</math>, it is convenient to use the following forms of abbreviation:

+

'''Note on notation.''' When there is only one sign relation <math>L_J = L(J)\!</math> associated with a given interpreter <math>J\!</math>, it is convenient to use the following forms of abbreviation:

{| align="center" cellspacing="6" width="90%"

Line 571: Line 584:

& = & (L_J)_{OI}

& = & L(J)_{OI}

−

\end{array}</math>

+

\end{array}\!</math>

|}

Line 583: Line 596:

=====1.3.4.3. Semiotic Equivalence Relations=====

−

If one examines the sign relations <math>L_\text{A}</math> and <math>L_\text{B}</math> that are associated with the interpreters <math>\text{A}</math> and <math>\text{B}</math>, respectively, one observes that they have many contingent properties that are not possessed by sign relations in general. One nice property possessed by the sign relations <math>L_\text{A}</math> and <math>L_\text{B}</math> is that their connotative components <math>\text{A}_{SI}</math> and <math>\text{B}_{SI}</math> constitute a pair of [[equivalence relation]]s on their common syntactic domain <math>S = I</math>. It is convenient to refer to such structures as ''[[semiotic equivalence relation]]s'' (SERs) since they equate signs that mean the same thing to somebody. Each of the SERs, <math>\text{A}_{SI}, \text{B}_{SI} \subseteq S \times I = S \times S</math>, partitions the whole collection of signs into ''[[semiotic equivalence class]]es'' (SECs). This makes for a strong form of representation in that the structure of the participants' common object domain is reflected or reconstructed, part for part, in the structure of each of their ''[[semiotic partition]]s'' (SEPs) of the syntactic domain.

+

If one examines the sign relations <math>L_\text{A}\!</math> and <math>L_\text{B}\!</math> that are associated with the interpreters <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math>, respectively, one observes that they have many contingent properties that are not possessed by sign relations in general. One nice property possessed by the sign relations <math>L_\text{A}\!</math> and <math>L_\text{B}\!</math> is that their connotative components <math>\text{A}_{SI}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}_{SI}\!</math> constitute a pair of [[equivalence relation]]s on their common syntactic domain <math>S = I\!</math>. It is convenient to refer to such structures as ''[[semiotic equivalence relation]]s'' (SERs) since they equate signs that mean the same thing to somebody. Each of the SERs, <math>\text{A}_{SI}, \text{B}_{SI} \subseteq S \times I = S \times S\!</math>, partitions the whole collection of signs into ''[[semiotic equivalence class]]es'' (SECs). This makes for a strong form of representation in that the structure of the participants' common object domain is reflected or reconstructed, part for part, in the structure of each of their ''[[semiotic partition]]s'' (SEPs) of the syntactic domain.

−

The main trouble with this notion of semantics in the present situation is that the two semiotic partitions for <math>\text{A}</math> and <math>\text{B}</math> are not the same, indeed, they are orthogonal to each other. This makes it difficult to interpret either one of the partitions or equivalence relations on the syntactic domain as corresponding to any sort of objective structure or invariant reality, independent of the individual interpreter's point of view.

+

The main trouble with this notion of semantics in the present situation is that the two semiotic partitions for <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math> are not the same, indeed, they are orthogonal to each other. This makes it difficult to interpret either one of the partitions or equivalence relations on the syntactic domain as corresponding to any sort of objective structure or invariant reality, independent of the individual interpreter's point of view.

−

Information about the different forms of semiotic equivalence induced by the interpreters <math>\text{A}</math> and <math>\text{B}</math> is summarized in Tables 3 and 4. The form of these Tables should suffice to explain what is meant by saying that the SEPs for <math>\text{A}</math> and <math>\text{B}</math> are orthogonal to each other.

+

Information about the different forms of semiotic equivalence induced by the interpreters <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math> is summarized in Tables 3 and 4. The form of these Tables should suffice to explain what is meant by saying that the SEPs for <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math> are orthogonal to each other.

{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="12" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:60%"

−

|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\text{Table 3.} ~~ \text{Semiotic Partition of Interpreter A}</math>

+

|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\text{Table 3.} ~~ \text{Semiotic Partition of Interpreter A}\!</math>

|

{| align="center" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:100%"

−

| width="50%" | <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}</math>

+

| width="50%" | <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>

−

| width="50%" | <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}</math>

+

| width="50%" | <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>

|}

|-

|

{| align="center" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:100%"

−

| width="50%" | <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}</math>

+

| width="50%" | <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>

−

| width="50%" | <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}</math>

+

| width="50%" | <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>

|}

Line 609: Line 622:

{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="12" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:60%"

−

|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\text{Table 4.} ~~ \text{Semiotic Partition of Interpreter B}</math>

+

|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\text{Table 4.} ~~ \text{Semiotic Partition of Interpreter B}\!</math>

|

{| align="center" border="0" cellpadding="12" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:50%"

−

| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}</math>

+

| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>

|-

−

| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}</math>

+

| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>

|}

|

{| align="center" border="0" cellpadding="12" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:50%"

−

| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}</math>

+

| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>

|-

−

| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}</math>

+

| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>

|}

Line 626: Line 639:

−

To discuss these types of situations further, I introduce the square bracket notation <math>[x]_E</math> for ''the equivalence class of the element <math>x</math> under the equivalence relation <math>E</math>''. A statement that the elements <math>x</math> and <math>y</math> are equivalent under <math>E</math> is called an ''equation'', and can be written in either one of two ways, as <math>[x]_E = [y]_E</math> or as <math>x =_E y</math>.

+

To discuss these types of situations further, I introduce the square bracket notation <math>[x]_E\!</math> for ''the equivalence class of the element <math>x\!</math> under the equivalence relation <math>E\!</math>''. A statement that the elements <math>x\!</math> and <math>y\!</math> are equivalent under <math>E\!</math> is called an ''equation'', and can be written in either one of two ways, as <math>[x]_E = [y]_E\!</math> or as <math>x =_E y\!</math>.

−

In the application to sign relations I extend this notation in the following ways. When <math>L</math> is a sign relation whose ''syntactic projection'' or connotative component <math>L_{SI}</math> is an equivalence relation on <math>S</math>, I write <math>[s]_L</math> for ''the equivalence class of <math>s</math> under <math>L_{SI}</math>''. A statement that the signs <math>x</math> and <math>y</math> are synonymous under a semiotic equivalence relation <math>L_{SI}</math> is called a ''semiotic equation'' (SEQ), and can be written in either of the forms: <math>[x]_L = [y]_L</math> or <math>x =_L y</math>.

+

In the application to sign relations I extend this notation in the following ways. When <math>L\!</math> is a sign relation whose ''syntactic projection'' or connotative component <math>L_{SI}\!</math> is an equivalence relation on <math>S\!</math>, I write <math>[s]_L\!</math> for ''the equivalence class of <math>s\!</math> under <math>L_{SI}\!</math>''. A statement that the signs <math>x\!</math> and <math>y\!</math> are synonymous under a semiotic equivalence relation <math>L_{SI}\!</math> is called a ''semiotic equation'' (SEQ), and can be written in either of the forms: <math>[x]_L = [y]_L\!</math> or <math>x =_L y\!</math>.

−

In many situations there is one further adaptation of the square bracket notation that can be useful. Namely, when there is known to exist a particular triple <math>(o, s, i) \in L</math>, it is permissible to use <math>[o]_L</math> to mean the same thing as <math>[s]_L</math>. These modifications are designed to make the notation for semiotic equivalence classes harmonize as well as possible with the frequent use of similar devices for the denotations of signs and expressions.

+

In many situations there is one further adaptation of the square bracket notation that can be useful. Namely, when there is known to exist a particular triple <math>(o, s, i) \in L\!</math>, it is permissible to use <math>[o]_L\!</math> to mean the same thing as <math>[s]_L\!</math>. These modifications are designed to make the notation for semiotic equivalence classes harmonize as well as possible with the frequent use of similar devices for the denotations of signs and expressions.

−

In these terms, the SER for interpreter <math>\text{A}</math> yields the semiotic equations:

+

In these terms, the SER for interpreter <math>\text{A}\!</math> yields the semiotic equations:

{| cellpadding="10"

| width="10%" |  

−

| <math>[{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}]_\text{A}</math>

+

| <math>[{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}]_\text{A}\!</math>

−

| <math>=</math>

+

| <math>=\!</math>

−

| <math>[{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}]_\text{A}</math>

+

| <math>[{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}]_\text{A}\!</math>

| width="20%" |  

−

| <math>[{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}]_\text{A}</math>

+

| <math>[{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}]_\text{A}\!</math>

−

| <math>=</math>

+

| <math>=\!</math>

−

| <math>[{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}]_\text{A}</math>

+

| <math>[{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}]_\text{A}\!</math>

|-

| width="10%" | or

−

|  <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}</math>

+

|  <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>

−

| <math>=_\text{A}</math>

+

| <math>=_\text{A}\!</math>

−

|  <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}</math>

+

|  <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>

| width="20%" |  

−

|  <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}</math>

+

|  <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>

−

| <math>=_\text{A}</math>

+

| <math>=_\text{A}\!</math>

−

|  <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}</math>

+

|  <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>

|}

−

and the semiotic partition: <math>\{ \{ {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime} \} , \{ {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime} \} \}</math>.

+

and the semiotic partition: <math>\{ \{ {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime} \} , \{ {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime} \} \}\!</math>.

−

In contrast, the SER for interpreter <math>\text{B}</math> yields the semiotic equations:

+

In contrast, the SER for interpreter <math>\text{B}\!</math> yields the semiotic equations:

{| cellpadding="10"

| width="10%" |  

−

| <math>[{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}]_\text{B}</math>

+

| <math>[{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}]_\text{B}\!</math>

−

| <math>=</math>

+

| <math>=\!</math>

−

| <math>[{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}]_\text{B}</math>

+

| <math>[{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}]_\text{B}\!</math>

| width="20%" |  

−

| <math>[{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}]_\text{B}</math>

+

| <math>[{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}]_\text{B}\!</math>

−

| <math>=</math>

+

| <math>=\!</math>

−

| <math>[{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}]_\text{B}</math>

+

| <math>[{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}]_\text{B}\!</math>

|-

| width="10%" | or

−

|  <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}</math>

+

|  <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>

−

| <math>=_\text{B}</math>

+

| <math>=_\text{B}\!</math>

−

|  <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}</math>

+

|  <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>

| width="20%" |  

−

|  <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}</math>

+

|  <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>

−

| <math>=_\text{B}</math>

+

| <math>=_\text{B}\!</math>

−

|  <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}</math>

+

|  <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>

|}

−

and the semiotic partition: <math>\{ \{ {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime} \} , \{ {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime} \} \}</math>.

+

and the semiotic partition: <math>\{ \{ {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime} \} , \{ {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime} \} \}\!</math>.

=====1.3.4.4. Graphical Representations=====

Line 684: Line 697:

The dyadic components of sign relations can be given graph-theoretic representations, as ''digraphs'' (or ''directed graphs''), that provide concise pictures of their structural and potential dynamic properties.

−

By way of terminology, a directed edge <math>(x, y)</math> is called an ''arc'' from point <math>x</math> to point <math>y</math>, and a self-loop <math>(x, x)</math> is called a ''sling'' at <math>x</math>.

+

By way of terminology, a directed edge <math>(x, y)\!</math> is called an ''arc'' from point <math>x\!</math> to point <math>y\!</math>, and a self-loop <math>(x, x)\!</math> is called a ''sling'' at <math>x\!</math>.

−

The denotative components <math>\operatorname{Den}(\text{A})</math> and <math>\operatorname{Den}(\text{B})</math> can be represented as digraphs on the six points of their common world set <math>W = O \cup S \cup I = \{ \text{A}, \text{B}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime} \}</math>. The arcs are given as follows:

+

The denotative components <math>\operatorname{Den}(\text{A})\!</math> and <math>\operatorname{Den}(\text{B})\!</math> can be represented as digraphs on the six points of their common world set <math>W = O \cup S \cup I = \{ \text{A}, \text{B}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime} \}\!</math>. The arcs are given as follows:

−

:: <math>\operatorname{Den}(\text{A})</math> has an arc from each point of <math>\{ {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime} \}</math> to <math>\text{A}</math> and from each point of <math>\{ {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime} \}</math> to <math>\text{B}</math>.

+

:: <math>\operatorname{Den}(\text{A})\!</math> has an arc from each point of <math>\{ {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime} \}\!</math> to <math>\text{A}\!</math> and from each point of <math>\{ {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime} \}\!</math> to <math>\text{B}\!</math>.

−

:: <math>\operatorname{Den}(\text{B})</math> has an arc from each point of <math>\{ {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime} \}</math> to <math>\text{A}</math> and from each point of <math>\{ {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime} \}</math> to <math>\text{B}</math>.

+

:: <math>\operatorname{Den}(\text{B})\!</math> has an arc from each point of <math>\{ {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime} \}\!</math> to <math>\text{A}\!</math> and from each point of <math>\{ {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime} \}\!</math> to <math>\text{B}\!</math>.

−

<math>\operatorname{Den}(\text{A})</math> and <math>\operatorname{Den}(\text{B})</math> can be interpreted as ''transition digraphs'' that chart the succession of steps or the connection of states in a computational process. If the graphs are read this way, the denotational arcs summarize the ''upshots'' of the computations that are involved when the interpreters <math>\text{A}</math> and <math>\text{B}</math> evaluate the signs in <math>S</math> according to their own frames of reference.

+

<math>\operatorname{Den}(\text{A})\!</math> and <math>\operatorname{Den}(\text{B})\!</math> can be interpreted as ''transition digraphs'' that chart the succession of steps or the connection of states in a computational process. If the graphs are read this way, the denotational arcs summarize the ''upshots'' of the computations that are involved when the interpreters <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math> evaluate the signs in <math>S\!</math> according to their own frames of reference.

−

The connotative components <math>\operatorname{Con}(\text{A})</math> and <math>\operatorname{Con}(\text{B})</math> can be represented as digraphs on the four points of their common syntactic domain <math>S = I = \{ {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime} \}</math>. Since <math>\operatorname{Con}(\text{A})</math> and <math>\operatorname{Con}(\text{B})</math> are SERs, their digraphs conform to the pattern that is manifested by all digraphs of equivalence relations. In general, a digraph of an equivalence relation falls into connected components that correspond to the parts of the associated partition, with a complete digraph on the points of each part, and no other arcs. In the present case, the arcs are given as follows:

+

The connotative components <math>\operatorname{Con}(\text{A})\!</math> and <math>\operatorname{Con}(\text{B})\!</math> can be represented as digraphs on the four points of their common syntactic domain <math>S = I = \{ {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime} \}\!</math>. Since <math>\operatorname{Con}(\text{A})\!</math> and <math>\operatorname{Con}(\text{B})\!</math> are SERs, their digraphs conform to the pattern that is manifested by all digraphs of equivalence relations. In general, a digraph of an equivalence relation falls into connected components that correspond to the parts of the associated partition, with a complete digraph on the points of each part, and no other arcs. In the present case, the arcs are given as follows:

−

:: <math>\operatorname{Con}(\text{A})</math> has the structure of a SER on <math>S</math>, with a sling at each of the points in <math>S</math>, two-way arcs between the points of <math>\{ {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime} \}</math>, and two-way arcs between the points of <math>\{ {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime} \}</math>.

+

:: <math>\operatorname{Con}(\text{A})\!</math> has the structure of a SER on <math>S\!</math>, with a sling at each of the points in <math>S\!</math>, two-way arcs between the points of <math>\{ {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime} \}\!</math>, and two-way arcs between the points of <math>\{ {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime} \}\!</math>.

−

:: <math>\operatorname{Con}(\text{B})</math> has the structure of a SER on <math>S</math>, with a sling at each of the points in <math>S</math>, two-way arcs between the points of <math>\{ {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime} \}</math>, and two-way arcs between the points of <math>\{ {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime} \}</math>.

+

:: <math>\operatorname{Con}(\text{B})\!</math> has the structure of a SER on <math>S\!</math>, with a sling at each of the points in <math>S\!</math>, two-way arcs between the points of <math>\{ {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime} \}\!</math>, and two-way arcs between the points of <math>\{ {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime} \}\!</math>.

−

Taken as transition digraphs, <math>\operatorname{Con}(\text{A})</math> and <math>\operatorname{Con}(\text{B})</math> highlight the associations that are permitted between equivalent signs, as this equivalence is judged by the interpreters <math>\text{A}</math> and <math>\text{B}</math>, respectively.

+

Taken as transition digraphs, <math>\operatorname{Con}(\text{A})\!</math> and <math>\operatorname{Con}(\text{B})\!</math> highlight the associations that are permitted between equivalent signs, as this equivalence is judged by the interpreters <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math>, respectively.

The theme running through the last three subsections, that associates different interpreters and different aspects of interpretation with different sorts of relational structures on the same set of points, heralds a topic that will be developed extensively in the sequel.

Line 706: Line 719:

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

−

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.

+

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.

Line 712: Line 725:

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 <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.

+

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=====

−

There is one point of common contention that I finessed from play in my handling of the discussion between <math>\text{A}</math> and <math>\text{B}</math>, even though it lies in plain view on both their Tables. This is the troubling business, recalcitrant to analysis precisely because its operations race on so heedlessly ahead of thought and grind on so routinely beneath its notice, that concerns the placement of object languages within the frame of a meta-language.

+

There is one point of common contention that I finessed from play in my handling of the discussion between <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math>, even though it lies in plain view on both their Tables. This is the troubling business, recalcitrant to analysis precisely because its operations race on so heedlessly ahead of thought and grind on so routinely beneath its notice, that concerns the placement of object languages within the frame of a meta-language.

Numerous bars to insight appear to interlock here. Each one is forged with a good aim in mind, if a bit single-minded in its coverage of the scene, and the whole gang is set to work innocently enough in the unavoidable circumstances of informal discussion. But a failure to absorb their amalgamated impact on the figurative representations and the analytic intentions of sign relations can lead to several types of false impression, both about the true characters of the tables presented here and about the proper utilities of their graphical equivalents to be implemented as data structures in the computer. The next few remarks are put forth in hopes of averting these brands of misreading.

−

The general character of this question can be expressed in the schematic terms that were used earlier to give a rough sketch of the modeling activity as a whole. How do the isolated SOIs of <math>\text{A}</math> and <math>\text{B}</math> relate to the interpretive framework that I am using to present them, and how does this IF operate, not only to objectify <math>\text{A}</math> and <math>\text{B}</math> as models of interpretation (MOIs), but simultaneously to embrace the present and the prospective SOIs of the current narrative, the implicit systems of interpretation that embody in turn the initial conditions and the final intentions of this whole discussion?

+

The general character of this question can be expressed in the schematic terms that were used earlier to give a rough sketch of the modeling activity as a whole. How do the isolated SOIs of <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math> relate to the interpretive framework that I am using to present them, and how does this IF operate, not only to objectify <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math> as models of interpretation (MOIs), but simultaneously to embrace the present and the prospective SOIs of the current narrative, the implicit systems of interpretation that embody in turn the initial conditions and the final intentions of this whole discussion?

−

One way to see how this issue arises in the discussion of <math>\text{A}</math> and <math>\text{B}</math> is to recognize that each table of a sign relation is a complex sign in itself, each of whose syntactic constituents plays the role of a simpler sign. In other words, there is nothing but text to be seen on the page. In comparison to what it represents, the table is like a sign relation that has undergone a step of ''semantic ascent''. It is as if the entire contents of the original sign relation have been transposed up a notch on the scale that registers levels of indirectness in reference, each item passing from a more objective to a more symbolic mode of presentation.

+

One way to see how this issue arises in the discussion of <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math> is to recognize that each table of a sign relation is a complex sign in itself, each of whose syntactic constituents plays the role of a simpler sign. In other words, there is nothing but text to be seen on the page. In comparison to what it represents, the table is like a sign relation that has undergone a step of ''semantic ascent''. It is as if the entire contents of the original sign relation have been transposed up a notch on the scale that registers levels of indirectness in reference, each item passing from a more objective to a more symbolic mode of presentation.

Sign relations themselves, like any real objects of discussion, are either too abstract or too concrete to reside in the medium of communication, but can only find themselves represented there. The tables and graphs that are used to represent sign relations are themselves complex signs, involving a step of denotation to reach the sign relation intended. The intricacies of this step demand interpretive agents who are able, over and above executing all the rudimentary steps of denotation, to orchestrate the requisite kinds of concerted steps. This performance in turn requires a whole array of techniques to match the connotations of complex signs and to test their alternative styles of representation for semiotic equivalence. Analogous to the ways that matrices represent linear transformations and that multiplication tables represent group operations, a large part of the usefulness of these complex signs comes from the fact that they are not just conventional symbols for their objects but iconic representations of their structure.

Line 734: Line 747:

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 of <math>\text{A}</math> and <math>\text{B}</math> 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 <math>\text{A}</math> and <math>\text{B}</math> 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 of <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math> 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 <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math> 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.

The successful formalization of a focal sign relation cannot get around its reliance on prior forms of understanding, like the raw ability to follow indications whose components of competence are embodied in the vaster and largely unarticulated context of a peripheral sign relation. But the extent to which the analysis of a formal sign relation depends on a particular context or a particular interpreter is the extent to which an opportunity for understanding is undermined by a prior petition of the very principles to be explained. Thus, there is little satisfaction in special pleadings or ad hoc accounts of interpretive practice that cannot be transported across a multitude of contexts, media, and interpreters.

Line 742: Line 755:

One task is to eliminate several types of formal confound that currently affect this investigation. Even though there is an essential tension to be maintained down the lines between casual and formal discussion, the traffic across these realms needs to be monitored carefully. There are identifiable sources of confusion that devolve from the context of informal discussion and invade the arena of formal study, subverting its necessary powers of reflection and undermining its overall effectiveness.

−

One serious form of contamination can be traced to the accidental circumstance that <math>\text{A}</math> and <math>\text{B}</math> and I all use the same proper names for <math>\text{A}</math> and <math>\text{B}</math>. This renders it is impossible to tell, purely from the tokens that are being tendered, whether it is a formal or a casual transaction that forms the issue of the moment. It also means that a formalization of the writer's and the reader's accessory sign relations would have several portions that look identical to pieces of those Tables under formal review.

+

One serious form of contamination can be traced to the accidental circumstance that <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math> and I all use the same proper names for <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math>. This renders it is impossible to tell, purely from the tokens that are being tendered, whether it is a formal or a casual transaction that forms the issue of the moment. It also means that a formalization of the writer's and the reader's accessory sign relations would have several portions that look identical to pieces of those Tables under formal review.

=====1.3.4.8. The Conflict of Interpretations=====

−

One discrepancy that needs to be documented can be observed in the conflict of interpretations between <math>\text{A}</math> and <math>\text{B}</math>, as reflected in the lack of congruity between their semiotic partitions of the syntactic domain. This is a problematic but realistic feature of the present example. That is, it represents a type of problem with the interpretation of pronouns (indexical signs or bound variables) that actually arises in practice when attempting to formalize the semantics of natural, logical, and programming languages. On this account, the deficiency resides with the present analysis, and the burden remains to clarify exactly what is going on here.

+

One discrepancy that needs to be documented can be observed in the conflict of interpretations between <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math>, as reflected in the lack of congruity between their semiotic partitions of the syntactic domain. This is a problematic but realistic feature of the present example. That is, it represents a type of problem with the interpretation of pronouns (indexical signs or bound variables) that actually arises in practice when attempting to formalize the semantics of natural, logical, and programming languages. On this account, the deficiency resides with the present analysis, and the burden remains to clarify exactly what is going on here.

Notice, however, that I have deliberately avoided dealing with indexical tokens in the usual ways, namely, by seeking to eliminate all semantic ambiguities from the initial formalization. Instead, I have preserved this aspect of interpretive discrepancy as one of the essential phenomena or inescapable facts in the realm of pragmatic semantics, tantamount to the irreducible nature of perspective diversity. I believe that the desired competence at this faculty of language will come, not from any strategy of substitution that constantly replenishes bound variables with their objective referents on every fixed occasion, but from a pattern of recognition that keeps indexical signs persistently attached to their interpreters of reference.

Line 792: Line 805:

=====1.3.4.11. Review and Prospect=====

−

What has been learned from the foregoing study of icons and indices? The import of this examination can be sized up in two stages, at first, by reflecting on the action of both the formal and the casual signs that were found to be operating in and around the discussion of <math>\text{A}</math> and <math>\text{B}</math>, and then, by taking up the lessons of this circumscribed arena as a paradigm for future investigation.

+

What has been learned from the foregoing study of icons and indices? The import of this examination can be sized up in two stages, at first, by reflecting on the action of both the formal and the casual signs that were found to be operating in and around the discussion of <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math>, and then, by taking up the lessons of this circumscribed arena as a paradigm for future investigation.

−

In order to explain the operation of sign relations corresponding to iconic and indexical signs in the <math>\text{A}</math> and <math>\text{B}</math> example, it becomes necessary to refer to potential objects of thought that are located, if they exist at all, outside the realm of the initial object set, that is, lying beyond the objects of thought present at the outset of discussion that one initially recognizes as objects of formally identified signs. In particular, it is incumbent on a satisfying explanation to invoke the abstract properties of objects and the actual instances of objects, where these properties and instances are normally assumed to be new objects of thought that are distinct from the objects to which they refer.

+

In order to explain the operation of sign relations corresponding to iconic and indexical signs in the <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math> example, it becomes necessary to refer to potential objects of thought that are located, if they exist at all, outside the realm of the initial object set, that is, lying beyond the objects of thought present at the outset of discussion that one initially recognizes as objects of formally identified signs. In particular, it is incumbent on a satisfying explanation to invoke the abstract properties of objects and the actual instances of objects, where these properties and instances are normally assumed to be new objects of thought that are distinct from the objects to which they refer.

In the pragmatic account of things, thoughts are just signs in the mind of their thinker, so every object of a thought is the object of a sign, though perhaps in a sign relation that has not been fully formalized. Considered on these grounds, the search for a satisfactory context in which to explain the actions and effects of signs turns into a recursive process that potentially calls on ever higher levels of properties and ever deeper levels of instances that are found to stem from whatever objects instigated the search.

Line 808: Line 821:

This subsection presents the ''objective project'' (OP) that I plan to take up for investigating the forms of sign relations, and it outlines three ''objective levels'' (OLs) of formulation that guide the analytic and synthetic study of interpretive structure and regulate the prospective stages of implementing this plan in particular cases. The main purpose of these schematic conceptions is organizational, to provide a conceptual architecture for the burgeoning hierarchies of objects that arise in the generative processes of inquiry.

−

In the immediate context the objective project and the three levels of objective description are presented in broad terms. In the process of surveying a variety of problems that serve to instigate efforts in this general direction, I explore the prospects of a particular ''organon'', or ''instrumental scheme for the analysis and synthesis of objects'', that is intended to address these issues, and I give an overview of its design. In interpreting the sense of the word ''objective'' as it is used in this application, it may help to regard this objective project in the light of a telescopic analogy, with an ''objective'' being "a lens or system of lenses that forms an image of an object" (Webster's).

+

In the immediate context the objective project and the three levels of objective description are presented in broad terms. In the process of surveying a variety of problems that serve to instigate efforts in this general direction, I explore the prospects of a particular ''organon'', or ''instrumental scheme for the analysis and synthesis of objects'', that is intended to address these issues, and I give an overview of its design. In interpreting the sense of the word ''objective'' as it is used in this application, it may help to regard this objective project in the light of a telescopic analogy, with an ''objective'' being “a lens or system of lenses that forms an image of an object” (Webster's).

−

In the next three subsections after this one the focus returns to the separate levels of object structure, starting with the highest level of specification and treating the supporting levels in order of increasing detail. At each stage, the developing tools are applied to the analysis of concrete problems that arise in trying to clarify the structure and function of sign relations. For the present task, elaborations of this perspective are kept within the bounds of what is essential to deal with the example of <math>\text{A}</math> and <math>\text{B}</math>.

+

In the next three subsections after this one the focus returns to the separate levels of object structure, starting with the highest level of specification and treating the supporting levels in order of increasing detail. At each stage, the developing tools are applied to the analysis of concrete problems that arise in trying to clarify the structure and function of sign relations. For the present task, elaborations of this perspective are kept within the bounds of what is essential to deal with the example of <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math>.

My use of the word ''object'' derives from the stock of the Greek root ''pragma'', which captures all the senses needed to suggest the stability of concern and the dedication to purpose that are forever bound up in the constitution of objects and the institution of objectives. What it implies is that every object, objective, or objectivity is always somebody's object, objective, or objectivity.

Line 821: Line 834:

In this project I would like to treat the difference between construction and deconstruction as being more or less synonymous with the contrast between synthesis and analysis, but doing this without the introduction of too much distortion requires the intervention of a further distinction. Therefore, let it be recognized that all orientations to the constitutions of objects can be pursued in both ''regimented'' and ''radical'' fashions.

+

In the weaker senses of the terms, analysis and synthesis work within a preset and limited regime of objects, construing each object as being composed from a fixed inventory of stock constituents. In the stronger senses, contracting for the application of these terms places a more strenuous demand on the would-be construer.

Line 839: Line 853:

Any given OG can appear under the alias of a ''form of analysis'' (FOA) or a ''form of synthesis'' (FOS), depending on the direction of prevailing interest. A notion frequently invoked for the same purpose is that of an ''ontological hierarchy'' (OH), but I will use this only provisionally, and only so long as it is clear that alternative ontologies can always be proposed for the same space of objects.

−

An OG embodies many ''objective motives'' or ''objective motifs'' (OMs). If an OG constitutes a genus, or generic pattern of object structure, then the OMs amount to its specific and individual exemplars. Thus, an OM can appear in the guise of a particular instance, trial, or "run" of the general form of analytic or synthetic procedure that accords with the protocols of a given OG.

+

An OG embodies many ''objective motives'' or ''objective motifs'' (OMs). If an OG constitutes a genus, or generic pattern of object structure, then the OMs amount to its specific and individual exemplars. Thus, an OM can appear in the guise of a particular instance, trial, or “run” of the general form of analytic or synthetic procedure that accords with the protocols of a given OG.

In order to provide a way of talking about objective points of view in general without having to specify a particular level, I will use the term ''objective concern'' (OC) to cover any individual OF, OG, or OM.

Line 867: Line 881:

Accordingly, one of the roles intended for this OF is to provide a set of standard formulations for describing the moment to moment uncertainty of interpretive systems. The formally definable concepts of the MOI (the objective case of a SOI) and the IM (the momentary state of a SOI) are intended to formalize the intuitive notions of a generic mental constitution and a specific mental disposition that usually serve in discussing states and directions of mind.

−

The structures present at each objective level are formulated by means of converse pairs of ''staging relations'', prototypically symbolized by the signs <math>\lessdot</math> and <math>\gtrdot</math>. At the more generic levels of OFs and OGs the ''staging operations'' associated with the generators <math>\lessdot</math> and <math>\gtrdot</math> involve the application of dyadic relations analogous to class membership <math>\in\!</math> and its converse <math>\ni\!</math>, but the increasing amounts of parametric information that are needed to determine specific motives and detailed motifs give OMs the full power of triadic relations. Using the same pair of symbols to denote staging relations at all objective levels helps to prevent an excessive proliferation of symbols, but it means that the meaning of these symbols is always heavily dependent on context. In particular, even fundamental properties like the effective ''arity'' of the relations signified can vary from level to level.

+

The structures present at each objective level are formulated by means of converse pairs of ''staging relations'', prototypically symbolized by the signs <math>{\lessdot}\!</math> and <math>{\gtrdot}.\!</math> At the more generic levels of OFs and OGs the ''staging operations'' associated with the generators <math>{\lessdot}\!</math> and <math>{\gtrdot}\!</math> involve the application of dyadic relations analogous to class membership <math>{\in}\!</math> and its converse <math>{\ni}\!</math>, but the increasing amounts of parametric information that are needed to determine specific motives and detailed motifs give OMs the full power of triadic relations. Using the same pair of symbols to denote staging relations at all objective levels helps to prevent an excessive proliferation of symbols, but it means that the meaning of these symbols is always heavily dependent on context. In particular, even fundamental properties like the effective ''arity'' of the relations signified can vary from level to level.

−

The staging relations divide into two orientations, <math>\lessdot</math> versus <math>\gtrdot</math>, indicating opposing senses of direction with respect to the distinction between analytic and synthetic projects:

+

The staging relations divide into two orientations, <math>{\lessdot}\!</math> versus <math>{\gtrdot},\!</math> indicating opposing senses of direction with respect to the distinction between analytic and synthetic projects:

−

: The ''standing relations'', indicated by <math>\lessdot</math>, are analogous to the ''element of'' or membership relation <math>\in\!</math>. Another interpretation of <math>\lessdot</math> is the ''instance of'' relation. At least with respect to the more generic levels of analysis, any distinction between these readings is immaterial to the formal interests and structural objectives of this discussion.

+

: The ''standing relations'', indicated by <math>{\lessdot},\!</math> are analogous to the ''element of'' or membership relation <math>{\in}.\!</math> Another interpretation of <math>{\lessdot}\!</math> is the ''instance of'' relation. At least with respect to the more generic levels of analysis, any distinction between these readings is immaterial to the formal interests and structural objectives of this discussion.

−

: The ''propping relations'', indicated by <math>\gtrdot</math>, are analogous to the ''class of'' relation or converse of the membership relation. An alternate meaning for <math>\gtrdot</math> is the ''property of'' relation. Although it is possible to maintain a distinction here, this discussion is mainly interested in a level of formal structure to which this difference is irrelevant.

+

: The ''propping relations'', indicated by <math>{\gtrdot},\!</math> are analogous to the ''class of'' relation or converse of the membership relation. An alternate meaning for <math>{\gtrdot}\!</math> is the ''property of'' relation. Although it is possible to maintain a distinction here, this discussion is mainly interested in a level of formal structure to which this difference is irrelevant.

−

Although it may be logically redundant, it is useful in practice to introduce efficient symbolic devices for both directions of relation, <math>\lessdot</math> and <math>\gtrdot</math>, and to maintain a formal calculus that treats analogous pairs of relations on an equal footing. Extra measures of convenience come into play when the relations are used as assignment operations to create titles, define terms, and establish offices of objects in the active contexts of given relations. Thus, I regard these dual relationships as symmetric primitives and use them as the ''generating relations'' of all three objective levels.

+

Although it may be logically redundant, it is useful in practice to introduce efficient symbolic devices for both directions of relation, <math>{\lessdot}\!</math> and <math>{\gtrdot},\!</math> and to maintain a formal calculus that treats analogous pairs of relations on an equal footing. Extra measures of convenience come into play when the relations are used as assignment operations to create titles, define terms, and establish offices of objects in the active contexts of given relations. Thus, I regard these dual relationships as symmetric primitives and use them as the ''generating relations'' of all three objective levels.

Next, I present several different ways of formalizing objective genres and motives. The reason for employing multiple descriptions is to capture the various ways that these patterns of organization appear in practice.

Line 882: Line 896:

{| align="center" cellpadding="8"

−

| <math>G = \{ G_j \} = \{ G_j : j \in J \} ~\text{with}~ G_j \subseteq P_j \times Q_j ~ (\forall j \in J)</math>.

+

| <math>{G = \{ G_j \} = \{ G_j : j \in J \} ~\text{with}~ G_j \subseteq P_j \times Q_j ~ (\forall j \in J)}.\!</math>

|}

−

Here, <math>J\!</math> is a set of actual (not formal) parameters used to index the OG, while <math>P_j\!</math> and <math>Q_j\!</math> are domains of objects (initially in the informal sense) that enter into the dyadic relations <math>G_j\!</math>.

+

Here, <math>J\!</math> is a set of actual (not formal) parameters used to index the OG, while <math>{P_j}\!</math> and <math>{Q_j}\!</math> are domains of objects (initially in the informal sense) that enter into the dyadic relations <math>{G_j}.\!</math>

−

Aside from their indices, many of the <math>G_j\!</math> in <math>G\!</math> can be abstractly identical to each other. This would earn <math>G\!</math> the designation of a ''multi-family'' or a ''multi-set'', but I prefer to treat the index <math>j\!</math> as a concrete part of the indexed relation <math>G_j\!</math>, in this way distinguishing it from all other members of the indexed family <math>G\!</math>.

+

Aside from their indices, many of the <math>{G_j}~\!</math> in <math>G\!</math> can be abstractly identical to each other. This would earn <math>G\!</math> the designation of a ''multi-family'' or a ''multi-set'', but I prefer to treat the index <math>j\!</math> as a concrete part of the indexed relation <math>{G_j},\!</math> in this way distinguishing it from all other members of the indexed family <math>G\!</math>.

−

Ordinarily, it is desirable to avoid making individual mention of the separately indexed domains, <math>P_j\!</math> and <math>Q_j\!</math> for all <math>j\!</math> in <math>J\!</math>. Common strategies for getting around this trouble involve the introduction of additional domains, designed to encompass all the objects needed in given contexts. Toward this end, an adequate supply of intermediate domains, called the ''rudiments of universal mediation'', can be defined as follows:

+

Ordinarily, it is desirable to avoid making individual mention of the separately indexed domains, <math>{P_j}\!</math> and <math>{Q_j}\!</math> for all <math>j\!</math> in <math>J.\!</math> Common strategies for getting around this trouble involve the introduction of additional domains, designed to encompass all the objects needed in given contexts. Toward this end, an adequate supply of intermediate domains, called the ''rudiments of universal mediation'', can be defined as follows:

{| align="center" cellpadding="8"

−

| <math>X_j = P_j \cup Q_j</math>,

+

| <math>{X_j = P_j \cup Q_j},\!</math>

−

| <math>P = \textstyle \bigcup_j P_j</math>,

+

| <math>{P = \textstyle \bigcup_j P_j},\!</math>

−

| <math>Q = \textstyle \bigcup_j Q_j</math>.

+

| <math>{Q = \textstyle \bigcup_j Q_j}.\!</math>

|}

Ultimately, all of these ''totalitarian'' strategies end the same way, at first, by envisioning a domain <math>X\!</math> that is big enough to encompass all the objects of thought that might demand entry into a given discussion, and then, by invoking one of the following conventions:

−

: Rubric of Universal Inclusion: <math>X = \textstyle \bigcup_j (P_j \cup Q_j)</math>.

+

: Rubric of Universal Inclusion: <math>{X = \textstyle \bigcup_j (P_j \cup Q_j)}.\!</math>

−

: Rubric of Universal Equality: <math>X = P_j = Q_j\ (\forall j \in J)</math>.

+

: Rubric of Universal Equality: <math>{X = P_j = Q_j ~ (\forall j \in J)}.\!</math>

Working under either of these assumptions, <math>G\!</math> can be provided with a simplified form of presentation:

{| align="center" cellpadding="8"

−

| <math>G = \{ G_j \} = \{ G_j : j \in J \} ~\text{with}~ G_j \subseteq X \times X ~ (\forall j \in J)</math>.

+

| <math>{G = \{ G_j \} = \{ G_j : j \in J \} ~\text{with}~ G_j \subseteq X \times X ~ (\forall j \in J)}.\!</math>

|}

However, it serves a purpose of this project to preserve the individual indexing of relational domains for while longer, or at least to keep this usage available as an alternative formulation. Generally speaking, it is always possible in principle to form the union required by the universal inclusion convention, or without loss of generality to assume the equality imposed by the universal equality convention. The problem is that the unions and equalities invoked by these rubrics may not be effectively definable or testable in a computational context. Further, even when these sets or tests can be constructed or certified by some computational agent or another, the pertinent question at any interpretive moment is whether each collection or constraint is actively being apprehended or warranted by the particular interpreter charged with responsibility for it by the indicated assignment of domains.

−

But an overall purpose of this formalism is to represent the objects and constituencies ''known to'' specific interpreters at definite moments of their interpretive proceedings, in other words, to depict the information about objective existence and constituent structure that is possessed, recognized, responded to, acted on, and followed up by concrete agents as they move through their immediate contexts of activity. Accordingly, keeping individual tabs on the relational domains <math>P_j\!</math> and <math>Q_j\!</math>, though it does not solve this array of problems, does serve to mark the concern with particularity and to keep before the mind the issues of individual attention and responsibility that are appropriate to interpretive agents. In short, whether or not domains appear with explicit subscripts, one should always be ready to answer ''Who subscribes to these domains?''

+

But an overall purpose of this formalism is to represent the objects and constituencies ''known to'' specific interpreters at definite moments of their interpretive proceedings, in other words, to depict the information about objective existence and constituent structure that is possessed, recognized, responded to, acted on, and followed up by concrete agents as they move through their immediate contexts of activity. Accordingly, keeping individual tabs on the relational domains <math>{P_j}\!</math> and <math>{Q_j},\!</math> though it does not solve this array of problems, does serve to mark the concern with particularity and to keep before the mind the issues of individual attention and responsibility that are appropriate to interpretive agents. In short, whether or not domains appear with explicit subscripts, one should always be ready to answer ''Who subscribes to these domains?''

It is important to emphasize that the index set <math>J\!</math> and the particular attachments of indices to dyadic relations are part and parcel to <math>G\!</math>, befitting the concrete character intended for the concept of an objective genre, which is expected to realistically embody in the character of each <math>G_j\!</math> both ''a local habitation and a name''. For this reason, among others, the <math>G_j\!</math> can safely be referred to as ''individual dyadic relations''. Since the classical notion of an ''individual'' as a ''perfectly determinate entity'' has no application in finite information contexts, it is safe to recycle this term to distinguish the ''terminally informative particulars'' that a concrete index <math>j\!</math> adds to its thematic object <math>G_j\!</math>.

−

Depending on the prevailing direction of interest in the genre <math>G\!</math>, <math>\lessdot</math> or <math>\gtrdot</math>, the same symbol is used equivocally for all the relations <math>G_j\!</math>. The <math>G_j\!</math> can be regarded as formalizing the objective motives that make up the genre <math>G\!</math>, provided it is understood that the information corresponding to the parameter <math>j\!</math> constitutes an integral part of the ''motive'' or ''motif'' of <math>G_j\!</math>.

+

Depending on the prevailing direction of interest in the genre <math>G\!</math>, <math>{\lessdot}\!</math> or <math>{\gtrdot},\!</math> the same symbol is used equivocally for all the relations <math>{G_j}.\!</math> The <math>G_j\!</math> can be regarded as formalizing the objective motives that make up the genre <math>G\!</math>, provided it is understood that the information corresponding to the parameter <math>j\!</math> constitutes an integral part of the ''motive'' or ''motif'' of <math>{G_j}.\!</math>

In this formulation, <math>G\!</math> constitutes ''ontological hierarchy'' of a plenary type, one that determines the complete array of objects and relationships that are conceivable and describable within a given discussion. Operating with reference to the global field of possibilities presented by <math>G\!</math>, each <math>G_j\!</math> corresponds to the specialized competence of a particular agent, selecting out the objects and links of the generic hierarchy that are known to, owing to, or owned by a given interpreter.

Line 946: Line 960:

{| align="center" cellpadding="8"

−

| <math>G = \{ (j, p, q) \} \subseteq J \times P \times Q</math>,

+

| <math>G = \{ (j, p, q) \} \subseteq J \times P \times Q,\!</math>

|}

Line 952: Line 966:

{| align="center" cellpadding="8"

−

| <math>G = \{ (j, x, y) \} \subseteq J \times X \times X</math>.

+

| <math>G = \{ (j, x, y) \} \subseteq J \times X \times X.\!</math>

|}

Line 960: Line 974:

{| align="center" cellpadding="8"

−

| <math>G\!\uparrow ~=~ \{ (j, q, p) \in J \times Q \times P : (j, p, q) \in G \}</math>,

+

| <math>G\!\uparrow ~=~ \{ (j, q, p) \in J \times Q \times P : (j, p, q) \in G \},\!</math>

|}

Line 966: Line 980:

{| align="center" cellpadding="8"

−

| <math>G\!\uparrow ~=~ \{ (j, y, x) \in J \times X \times X : (j, x, y) \in G \}</math>.

+

| <math>G\!\uparrow ~=~ \{ (j, y, x) \in J \times X \times X : (j, x, y) \in G \}.\!</math>

|}

Line 974: Line 988:

{| align="center" cellpadding="8"

−

| <math>:\!\lessdot ~\subseteq~ J \times P \times Q</math>,

+

| <math>:\!\lessdot ~\subseteq~ J \times P \times Q,\!</math>

|-

−

| <math>:\!\lessdot ~\subseteq~ J \times X \times X</math>.

+

| <math>:\!\lessdot ~\subseteq~ J \times X \times X.\!</math>

|}

Line 982: Line 996:

{| align="center" cellpadding="8"

−

| <math>:\!\gtrdot ~\subseteq~ J \times Q \times P</math>,

+

| <math>:\!\gtrdot ~\subseteq~ J \times Q \times P,\!</math>

|-

−

| <math>:\!\gtrdot ~\subseteq~ J \times X \times X</math>.

+

| <math>:\!\gtrdot ~\subseteq~ J \times X \times X.\!</math>

|}

−

Often one's level of interest in a genre is ''purely generic''. When the relevant genre is regarded as an indexed family of dyadic relations, <math>G = \{ G_j \}\!</math>, then this generic interest is tantamount to having one's concern rest with the union of all the dyadic relations in the genre.

+

Often one's level of interest in a genre is ''purely generic''. When the relevant genre is regarded as an indexed family of dyadic relations, <math>G = \{ G_j \},\!</math> then this generic interest is tantamount to having one's concern rest with the union of all the dyadic relations in the genre.

{| align="center" cellpadding="8"

−

| <math>\textstyle \bigcup_J G = \textstyle \bigcup_j G_j = \{ (x, y) \in X \times X : (x, y) \in G_j ~ (\exists j \in J) \}</math>.

+

| <math>\textstyle \bigcup_J G = \textstyle \bigcup_j G_j = \{ (x, y) \in X \times X : (x, y) \in G_j ~ (\exists j \in J) \}.\!</math>

|}

−

When the relevant genre is contemplated as a triadic relation, <math>G \subseteq J \times X \times X</math>, then one is dealing with the projection of <math>G\!</math> on the object dyad <math>X \times X</math>.

+

When the relevant genre is contemplated as a triadic relation, <math>{G \subseteq J \times X \times X},\!</math> then one is dealing with the projection of <math>G\!</math> on the object dyad <math>X \times X.\!</math>

{| align="center" cellpadding="8"

−

| <math>G_{XX} = \operatorname{proj}_{XX}(G) = \{ (x, y) \in X \times X : (j, x, y) \in G ~ (\exists j \in J) \}</math>.

+

| <math>G_{XX} = \operatorname{proj}_{XX}(G) = \{ (x, y) \in X \times X : (j, x, y) \in G ~ (\exists j \in J) \}.\!</math>

|}

−

On these occasions, the assertion that <math>(x, y)\!</math> is in <math>\cup_J G = G_{XX}</math> can be indicated by any one of the following equivalent expressions:

+

On these occasions, the assertion that <math>(x, y)\!</math> is in <math>{\cup_J G = G_{XX}}\!</math> can be indicated by any one of the following equivalent expressions:

{| align="center" cellpadding="8" style="text-align:center; width:75%"

−

| <math>G : x \lessdot y</math>,

+

| <math>{G : x \lessdot y},\!</math>

−

| <math>x \lessdot_G y</math>,

+

| <math>{x \lessdot_G y},\!</math>

−

| <math>x \lessdot y : G</math>,

+

| <math>{x \lessdot y : G},\!</math>

|-

−

| <math>G : y \gtrdot x</math>,

+

| <math>{G : y \gtrdot x},\!</math>

−

| <math>y \gtrdot_G x</math>,

+

| <math>{y \gtrdot_G x},\!</math>

−

| <math>y \gtrdot x : G</math>.

+

| <math>{y \gtrdot x : G}.\!</math>

|}

−

At other times explicit mention needs to be made of the ''interpretive perspective'' or ''individual dyadic relation'' that links two objects. To indicate that a triple consisting of a motive <math>j\!</math> and two objects <math>x\!</math> and <math>y\!</math> belongs to the standing relation of the genre, in symbols, <math>(j, x, y) \in ~ :\!\lessdot</math>, or equally, to indicate that a triple consisting of a motive <math>j\!</math> and two objects <math>y\!</math> and <math>x\!</math> belongs to the propping relation of the genre, in symbols, <math>(j, y, x) \in ~ :\!\gtrdot</math>, all of the following notations are equivalent:

+

At other times explicit mention needs to be made of the ''interpretive perspective'' or ''individual dyadic relation'' that links two objects. To indicate that a triple consisting of a motive <math>j\!</math> and two objects <math>x\!</math> and <math>y\!</math> belongs to the standing relation of the genre, in symbols, <math>{(j, x, y) \in ~ :\!\lessdot},</math> or equally, to indicate that a triple consisting of a motive <math>j\!</math> and two objects <math>y\!</math> and <math>x\!</math> belongs to the propping relation of the genre, in symbols, <math>{(j, y, x) \in ~ :\!\gtrdot},</math> all of the following notations are equivalent:

{| align="center" cellpadding="8" style="text-align:center; width:75%"

−

| <math>j : x \lessdot y</math>,

+

| <math>{j : x \lessdot y},\!</math>

−

| <math>x \lessdot_j y</math>,

+

| <math>{x \lessdot_j y},\!</math>

−

| <math>x \lessdot y : j</math>,

+

| <math>{x \lessdot y : j},\!</math>

|-

−

| <math>j : y \gtrdot x</math>,

+

| <math>{j : y \gtrdot x},\!</math>

−

| <math>y \gtrdot_j x</math>,

+

| <math>{y \gtrdot_j x},\!</math>

−

| <math>y \gtrdot x : j</math>.

+

| <math>{y \gtrdot x : j}.\!</math>

|}

Line 1,027: Line 1,041:

−

{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="2" style="text-align:left; width:~~100~~%"

+

{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="2" style="text-align:left; width:75%"

|

−

{| align="center" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="background:~~#f0f0ff~~; text-align:left; width:100%"

+

{| align="center" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="background:ghostwhite; text-align:left; width:100%"

|-

−

| width="50%" | <math>j : x \lessdot y</math>

+

| width="50%" | <math>j : x \lessdot y\!</math>

−

| width="50%" | <math>j : y \gtrdot x</math>

+

| width="50%" | <math>j : y \gtrdot x\!</math>

|-

−

| <math>x \lessdot_j y</math>

+

| <math>x \lessdot_j y\!</math>

−

| <math>y \gtrdot_j x</math>

+

| <math>y \gtrdot_j x\!</math>

|-

−

| <math>x \lessdot y : j</math>

+

| <math>x \lessdot y : j\!</math>

−

| <math>y \gtrdot x : j</math>

+

| <math>y \gtrdot x : j\!</math>

|}

|-

|

{| align="center" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:left; width:100%"

−

| width="50%" | <math>j ~\text{sets}~ x ~\text{in}~ y.</math>

+

| width="50%" | <math>j ~\text{sets}~ x ~\text{in}~ y.\!</math>

−

| width="50%" | <math>j ~\text{sets}~ y ~\text{on}~ x.</math>

+

| width="50%" | <math>j ~\text{sets}~ y ~\text{on}~ x.\!</math>

|-

−

| <math>j ~\text{makes}~ x ~\text{an instance of}~ y.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{makes}~ x ~\text{an instance of}~ y.\!</math>

−

| <math>j ~\text{makes}~ y ~\text{a property of}~ x.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{makes}~ y ~\text{a property of}~ x.\!</math>

|-

−

| <math>j ~\text{thinks}~ x ~\text{an instance of}~ y.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{thinks}~ x ~\text{an instance of}~ y.\!</math>

−

| <math>j ~\text{thinks}~ y ~\text{a property of}~ x.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{thinks}~ y ~\text{a property of}~ x.\!</math>

|-

−

| <math>j ~\text{attests}~ x ~\text{an instance of}~ y.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{attests}~ x ~\text{an instance of}~ y.~\!</math>

−

| <math>j ~\text{attests}~ y ~\text{a property of}~ x.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{attests}~ y ~\text{a property of}~ x.~\!</math>

|-

−

| <math>j ~\text{appoints}~ x ~\text{an instance of}~ y.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{appoints}~ x ~\text{an instance of}~ y.\!</math>

−

| <math>j ~\text{appoints}~ y ~\text{a property of}~ x.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{appoints}~ y ~\text{a property of}~ x.\!</math>

|-

−

| <math>j ~\text{witnesses}~ x ~\text{an instance of}~ y.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{witnesses}~ x ~\text{an instance of}~ y.\!</math>

−

| <math>j ~\text{witnesses}~ y ~\text{a property of}~ x.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{witnesses}~ y ~\text{a property of}~ x.\!</math>

|-

−

| <math>j ~\text{interprets}~ x ~\text{an instance of}~ y.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{interprets}~ x ~\text{an instance of}~ y.\!</math>

−

| <math>j ~\text{interprets}~ y ~\text{a property of}~ x.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{interprets}~ y ~\text{a property of}~ x.\!</math>

|-

−

| <math>j ~\text{contributes}~ x ~\text{to}~ y.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{contributes}~ x ~\text{to}~ y.\!</math>

−

| <math>j ~\text{attributes}~ y ~\text{to}~ x.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{attributes}~ y ~\text{to}~ x.\!</math>

|-

−

| <math>j ~\text{determines}~ x ~\text{an example of}~ y.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{determines}~ x ~\text{an example of}~ y.\!</math>

−

| <math>j ~\text{determines}~ y ~\text{a quality of}~ x.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{determines}~ y ~\text{a quality of}~ x.\!</math>

|-

−

| <math>j ~\text{evaluates}~ x ~\text{an example of}~ y.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{evaluates}~ x ~\text{an example of}~ y.\!</math>

−

| <math>j ~\text{evaluates}~ y ~\text{a quality of}~ x.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{evaluates}~ y ~\text{a quality of}~ x.\!</math>

|-

−

| <math>j ~\text{proposes}~ x ~\text{an example of}~ y.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{proposes}~ x ~\text{an example of}~ y.\!</math>

−

| <math>j ~\text{proposes}~ y ~\text{a quality of}~ x.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{proposes}~ y ~\text{a quality of}~ x.\!</math>

|-

−

| <math>j ~\text{musters}~ x ~\text{under}~ y.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{musters}~ x ~\text{under}~ y.\!</math>

−

| <math>j ~\text{marshals}~ y ~\text{over}~ x.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{marshals}~ y ~\text{over}~ x.\!</math>

|-

−

| <math>j ~\text{indites}~ x ~\text{among}~ y.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{indites}~ x ~\text{among}~ y.~\!</math>

−

| <math>j ~\text{ascribes}~ y ~\text{about}~ x.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{ascribes}~ y ~\text{about}~ x.~\!</math>

|-

−

| <math>j ~\text{imputes}~ x ~\text{among}~ y.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{imputes}~ x ~\text{among}~ y.\!</math>

−

| <math>j ~\text{imputes}~ y ~\text{about}~ x.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{imputes}~ y ~\text{about}~ x.\!</math>

|-

−

| <math>j ~\text{judges}~ x ~\text{beneath}~ y.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{judges}~ x ~\text{beneath}~ y.\!</math>

−

| <math>j ~\text{judges}~ y ~\text{beyond}~ x.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{judges}~ y ~\text{beyond}~ x.\!</math>

|-

−

| <math>j ~\text{finds}~ x ~\text{preceding}~ y.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{finds}~ x ~\text{preceding}~ y.\!</math>

−

| <math>j ~\text{finds}~ y ~\text{succeeding}~ x.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{finds}~ y ~\text{succeeding}~ x.\!</math>

|-

−

| <math>j ~\text{poses}~ x ~\text{before}~ y.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{poses}~ x ~\text{before}~ y.\!</math>

−

| <math>j ~\text{poses}~ y ~\text{after}~ x.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{poses}~ y ~\text{after}~ x.\!</math>

|-

−

| <math>j ~\text{forms}~ x ~\text{below}~ y.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{forms}~ x ~\text{below}~ y.\!</math>

−

| <math>j ~\text{forms}~ y ~\text{above}~ x.</math>

+

| <math>j ~\text{forms}~ y ~\text{above}~ x.\!</math>

|}

Line 1,101: Line 1,115:

−

In making these free interpretations of genres and motifs, one needs to read them in a ''logical'' rather than a ''cognitive'' sense. A statement like "<math>j\!</math> thinks <math>x\!</math> an instance of <math>y\!</math>" should be understood as saying that "<math>j\!</math> is a thought with the logical import that <math>x\!</math> is an instance of <math>y\!</math>", and a statement like "<math>j\!</math> proposes <math>y\!</math> a property of <math>x\!</math>" should be taken to mean that "<math>j\!</math> is a proposition to the effect that <math>y\!</math> is a property of <math>x\!</math>".

+

In making these free interpretations of genres and motifs, one needs to read them in a ''logical'' rather than a ''cognitive'' sense. A statement like “<math>j\!</math> thinks <math>x\!</math> an instance of <math>y\!</math>” should be understood as saying that “<math>j\!</math> is a thought with the logical import that <math>x\!</math> is an instance of <math>y\!</math>”, and a statement like “<math>j\!</math> proposes <math>y\!</math> a property of <math>x\!</math>” should be taken to mean that “<math>j\!</math> is a proposition to the effect that <math>y\!</math> is a property of <math>x\!</math>”.

These cautions are necessary to forestall the problems of intentional attitudes and contexts, something I intend to clarify later on in this project. At present, I regard the well-known opacities of this subject as arising from the circumstance that cognitive glosses tend to impute an unspecified order of extra reflection to each construal of the basic predicates. The way I plan to approach this issue is through a detailed analysis of the cognitive capacity for reflective thought, to be developed to the extent possible in formal terms by using sign relational models.

Line 1,107: Line 1,121:

By way of anticipating the nature of the problem, consider the following examples to illustrate the contrast between logical and cognitive senses:

−

:* In a cognitive context, if <math>j\!</math> is a considered opinion that <math>S\!</math> is true, and <math>j\!</math> is a considered opinion that <math>T\!</math> is true, then it does not have to automatically follow that <math>j\!</math> is a considered opinion that the conjunction <math>S\ \operatorname{and}\ T</math> is true, since an extra measure of consideration might conceivably be involved in cognizing the conjunction of <math>S\!</math> and <math>T\!</math>.

+

:* In a cognitive context, if <math>j\!</math> is a considered opinion that <math>S\!</math> is true, and <math>j\!</math> is a considered opinion that <math>T\!</math> is true, then it does not have to automatically follow that <math>j\!</math> is a considered opinion that the conjunction <math>S ~\operatorname{and}~ T\!</math> is true, since an extra measure of consideration might conceivably be involved in cognizing the conjunction of <math>S\!</math> and <math>T.\!</math>

−

:* In a logical context, if <math>j\!</math> is a piece of evidence that <math>S\!</math> is true, and <math>j\!</math> is a piece of evidence that <math>T\!</math> is true, then it follows by these very facts alone that <math>j\!</math> is a piece of evidence that the conjunction <math>S\ \operatorname{and}\ T</math> is true. This is analogous to a situation where, if a person <math>j\!</math> draws a set of three lines, <math>AB,\!</math> <math>BC,\!</math> and <math>AC,\!</math> then <math>j\!</math> has drawn a triangle <math>ABC,\!</math> whether <math>j\!</math> recognizes the fact on reflection and further consideration or not.

+

:* In a logical context, if <math>j\!</math> is a piece of evidence that <math>S\!</math> is true, and <math>j\!</math> is a piece of evidence that <math>T\!</math> is true, then it follows by these very facts alone that <math>j\!</math> is a piece of evidence that the conjunction <math>S ~\operatorname{and}~ T\!</math> is true. This is analogous to a situation where, if a person <math>j\!</math> draws a set of three lines, <math>AB,\!</math> <math>BC,\!</math> and <math>AC,\!</math> then <math>j\!</math> has drawn a triangle <math>ABC,\!</math> whether <math>j\!</math> recognizes the fact on reflection and further consideration or not.

−

Some readings of the staging relations are tantamount to statements of (a possibly higher order) model theory. For example, consider the predicate <math>P : J \to \mathbb{B}</math> defined by the following equivalence:

+

Some readings of the staging relations are tantamount to statements of (a possibly higher order) model theory. For example, consider the predicate <math>P : J \to \mathbb{B}\!</math> defined by the following equivalence:

{| align="center" cellpadding="8"

−

| <math>P(j) \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad j\ \text{proposes}\ x\ \text{an instance of}\ y.</math>

+

| <math>P(j) \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad j\ \text{proposes}\ x\ \text{an instance of}\ y.\!</math>

|}

−

Then <math>P\!</math> is a proposition that applies to a domain of propositions, or elements with the evidentiary import of propositions, and its models are therefore conceived to be certain propositional entities in <math>J\!</math>. And yet all of these expressions are just elaborate ways of stating the underlying assertion which says that there exists a triple <math>(j, x, y)\!</math> in the genre <math>G (:\!\lessdot)</math>.

+

Then <math>P\!</math> is a proposition that applies to a domain of propositions, or elements with the evidentiary import of propositions, and its models are therefore conceived to be certain propositional entities in <math>J.\!</math> And yet all of these expressions are just elaborate ways of stating the underlying assertion which says that there exists a triple <math>(j, x, y)\!</math> in the genre <math>G (:\!\lessdot).</math>

=====1.3.4.14. Application of OF : Generic Level=====

Line 1,123: Line 1,137:

Given an ontological framework that can provide multiple perspectives and moving platforms for dealing with object structure, in other words, that can organize diverse hierarchies and developing orders of objects, attention can now return to the discussion of sign relations as models of intellectual processes.

−

A principal aim of using sign relations as formal models is to be capable of analyzing complex activities that arise in nature and human domains. Proceeding by the opportunistic mode of ''analysis by synthesis'', one generates likely constructions from a stock of favored, familiar, and well-understood sign relations, the supply of which hopefully grows with time, constantly matching their formal properties against the structures encountered in the "wilds" of natural phenomena and human conduct. When salient traits of both the freely generated products and the widely gathered phenomena coincide in enough points, then the details of the constructs one has built for oneself can help to articulate a plausible hypothesis as to how the observable appearances might be explained.

+

A principal aim of using sign relations as formal models is to be capable of analyzing complex activities that arise in nature and human domains. Proceeding by the opportunistic mode of ''analysis by synthesis'', one generates likely constructions from a stock of favored, familiar, and well-understood sign relations, the supply of which hopefully grows with time, constantly matching their formal properties against the structures encountered in the “wilds” of natural phenomena and human conduct. When salient traits of both the freely generated products and the widely gathered phenomena coincide in enough points, then the details of the constructs one has built for oneself can help to articulate a plausible hypothesis as to how the observable appearances might be explained.

A principal difficulty of using sign relations for this purpose arises from the very power of productivity they bring to bear in the process, the capacity of triadic relations to generate a welter of what are bound to be mostly arbitrary structures, with only a scattered few hoping to show any promise, but the massive profusion of which exceeds from the outset any reason's ability to sort them out and test them in practice. And yet, as the phenomena of interest become more complex, the chances grow slimmer that adequate explanations will be found in any of the thinner haystacks. In this respect, sign relations inherit the basic proclivities of set theory, which can be so successful and succinct in presenting and clarifying the properties of already found materials and hard won formal insights, and yet so overwhelming to use as a tool of random exploration and discovery.

−

The sign relations of <math>A\!</math> and <math>B\!</math>, though natural in themselves as far as they go, were nevertheless introduced in an artificial fashion and presented by means of arbitrary stipulations. Sign relations that arise in more natural settings usually have a rationale, a reason for being as they are, and therefore become amenable to classification on the basis of the distinctive characters that make them what they are.

+

The sign relations of <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B},\!</math> though natural in themselves as far as they go, were nevertheless introduced in an artificial fashion and presented by means of arbitrary stipulations. Sign relations that arise in more natural settings usually have a rationale, a reason for being as they are, and therefore become amenable to classification on the basis of the distinctive characters that make them what they are.

Consequently, naturally occurring sign relations can be expected to fall into species or natural kinds, and to have special properties that make them keep on occurring in nature. Moreover, cultivated varieties of sign relations, the kinds that have been converted to social purposes and found to be viable in actual practice, will have identifiable and especially effective properties by virtue of which their signs are rendered significant.

−

In the pragmatic theory of sign relations, three natural kinds of signs are recognized, under the names of ''icons'', ''indices'', and ''symbols''. Examples of indexical or accessional signs figured significantly in the discussion of <math>A\!</math> and <math>B\!</math>, as illustrated by the pronouns <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}</math> and <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}</math> in <math>S\!</math>. Examples of iconic or analogical signs were also present, though keeping to the background, in the very form of the sign relation Tables that were used to schematize the whole activity of each interpreter. Examples of symbolic or conventional signs, of course, abide even more deeply in the background, pervading the whole context and making up the very fabric of this discussion.

+

In the pragmatic theory of sign relations, three natural kinds of signs are recognized, under the names of ''icons'', ''indices'', and ''symbols''. Examples of indexical or accessional signs figured significantly in the discussion of <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B},\!</math> as illustrated by the pronouns <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> and <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> in <math>S.\!</math> Examples of iconic or analogical signs were also present, though keeping to the background, in the very form of the sign relation Tables that were used to schematize the whole activity of each interpreter. Examples of symbolic or conventional signs, of course, abide even more deeply in the background, pervading the whole context and making up the very fabric of this discussion.

In order to deal with the array of issues presented so far in this subsection, all of which have to do with controlling the generative power of sign relations to serve the specific purposes of understanding, I apply the previously introduced concept of an ''objective genre'' (OG). This is intended to be a determinate purpose or a deliberate pattern of analysis and synthesis that one can identify as being active at given moments in a discussion and that affects what one regards as the relevant structural properties of its objects.

Line 1,141: Line 1,155:

Pretty much the same relational structures could be found in the genre or paradigm of ''qualities and examples'', but the use of ''examples'' here is polymorphous enough to include experiential, exegetic, and executable examples. This points the way to a series of related genres, for example, the OGs of ''principles and illustrations'', ''laws and existents'', ''precedents and exercises'', and on to ''lessons and experiences''. All in all, in their turn, these modulations of the basic OG show a way to shift the foundations of ontological hierarchies toward bases in individual and systematic experience, and thus to put existentially dynamic rollers under the blocks of what seem to be essentially invariant pyramids.

−

Any object of these OGs can be contemplated in the light of two potential relationships, namely, with respect to its chances of being an ''object quality'' or an ''object example'' of something else. In future references, abbreviated notations like <math>\operatorname{OG} (\operatorname{Prop}, \operatorname{Inst})</math> or <math>\operatorname{OG} = (\operatorname{Prop}, \operatorname{Inst})</math> will be used to specify particular genres, giving the intended interpretations of their generating relations <math>\{ \lessdot,\gtrdot \}.</math>

+

Any object of these OGs can be contemplated in the light of two potential relationships, namely, with respect to its chances of being an ''object quality'' or an ''object example'' of something else. In future references, abbreviated notations like <math>\operatorname{OG} (\operatorname{Prop}, \operatorname{Inst})\!</math> or <math>\operatorname{OG} = (\operatorname{Prop}, \operatorname{Inst})\!</math> will be used to specify particular genres, giving the intended interpretations of their generating relations <math>\{ \lessdot,\gtrdot \}.\!</math>

With respect to this OG, I can now characterize icons and indices. Icons are signs by virtue of being instances of properties of objects. Indices are signs by virtue of being properties of instances of objects.

Line 1,173: Line 1,187:

|}

−

In spite of the apparent duality between these patterns of composition, there is a significant asymmetry to be observed in the way that the insistent theme of realism interrupts the underlying genre. In order to understand this, it is necessary to note that the strain of pragmatic thinking I am using here takes its definition of ''reality'' from the word's original Scholastic sources, where the adjective ''real'' means ''having properties''. Taken in this sense, reality is necessary but not sufficient to ''actuality'', where ''actual'' means "existing in act and not merely potentially" (Webster's). To reiterate, actuality is sufficient but not necessary to reality. The distinction between the ideas is further pointed up by the fact that a potential can be real, and that its reality can be independent of any particular moment in which the power acts.

+

In spite of the apparent duality between these patterns of composition, there is a significant asymmetry to be observed in the way that the insistent theme of realism interrupts the underlying genre. In order to understand this, it is necessary to note that the strain of pragmatic thinking I am using here takes its definition of ''reality'' from the word's original Scholastic sources, where the adjective ''real'' means ''having properties''. Taken in this sense, reality is necessary but not sufficient to ''actuality'', where ''actual'' means “existing in act and not merely potentially” (Webster's). To reiterate, actuality is sufficient but not necessary to reality. The distinction between the ideas is further pointed up by the fact that a potential can be real, and that its reality can be independent of any particular moment in which the power acts.

These abstract considerations would probably remain distant from the present concern, were it not for two points of connection:

Line 1,180: Line 1,194:

# This project seeks articulations and implementations of intelligent activity within dynamically realistic systems. The individual stresses placed on articulation, implementation, actuality, dynamics, and reality collectively reinforce the importance of several issues:

−

::* Systems theory, consistently pursued, eventually demands for its rationalization a distinct ontology, in which states of being and modes of action form the principal objects of thought, out of which the ordinary sorts of stably extended objects must be constructed. In the "grammar" of process philosophy, verbs and pronouns are more basic than nouns. In its influence on the course of this discussion, the emphasis on systematic action is tantamount to an objective genre that makes dynamic systems, their momentary states and their passing actions, become the ultimate objects of synthesis and analysis. Consequently, the drift of this inquiry will be turned toward conceiving actions, as traced out in the trajectories of systems, to be the primitive elements of construction, more fundamental in this objective genre than stationary objects extended in space. As a corollary, it expects to find that physical objects of the static variety have a derivative status in relation to the activities that orient agents, both organisms and organizations, toward purposeful objectives.

+

::* Systems theory, consistently pursued, eventually demands for its rationalization a distinct ontology, in which states of being and modes of action form the principal objects of thought, out of which the ordinary sorts of stably extended objects must be constructed. In the “grammar” of process philosophy, verbs and pronouns are more basic than nouns. In its influence on the course of this discussion, the emphasis on systematic action is tantamount to an objective genre that makes dynamic systems, their momentary states and their passing actions, become the ultimate objects of synthesis and analysis. Consequently, the drift of this inquiry will be turned toward conceiving actions, as traced out in the trajectories of systems, to be the primitive elements of construction, more fundamental in this objective genre than stationary objects extended in space. As a corollary, it expects to find that physical objects of the static variety have a derivative status in relation to the activities that orient agents, both organisms and organizations, toward purposeful objectives.

::* At root, the notion of ''dynamics'' is concerned with ''power'' in the sense of ''potential''. The brand of pragmatic thinking that I use in this work permits potential entities to be analyzed as real objects and conceptual objects to be constituted by the conception of their actual effects in practical instances. In the attempt to unify symbolic and dynamic approaches to intelligent systems (Upper and Lower Kingdoms?), there remains an insistent need to build conceptual bridges. A facility for relating objects to their actualizing instances and their instantiating actions lends many useful tools to an effort of this nature, in which the search for understanding cannot rest until each object and phenomenon has been reconstructed in terms of active occurrences and ways of being.

Line 1,196: Line 1,210:

# ''For indices, the existence of a separate reality is obligatory.'' And yet this reality need not affect the object of the sign. In essence, indices are satisfied with a basis in reality that need only reside in an actual object instance, one that establishes a real connection between the object and its index with regard to the OG in question.

−

Finally, suppose that <math>M\!</math> and <math>N\!</math> are hypothetical sign relations intended to capture all the iconic and indexical relationships, respectively, that a typical object <math>x\!</math> enjoys within its genre <math>G\!</math>. A sign relation in which every sign has the same kind of relation to its object under an assumed form of analysis is appropriately called a ''homogeneous sign relation''. In particular, if <math>H\!</math> is a homogeneous sign relation in which every sign has either an iconic or an indexical relation to its object, then it is convenient to apply the corresponding adjective to the whole of <math>H\!</math>.

+

Finally, suppose that <math>M\!</math> and <math>N\!</math> are hypothetical sign relations intended to capture all the iconic and indexical relationships, respectively, that a typical object <math>x\!</math> enjoys within its genre <math>G.\!</math> A sign relation in which every sign has the same kind of relation to its object under an assumed form of analysis is appropriately called a ''homogeneous sign relation''. In particular, if <math>H\!</math> is a homogeneous sign relation in which every sign has either an iconic or an indexical relation to its object, then it is convenient to apply the corresponding adjective to the whole of <math>H.\!</math>

−

Typical sign relations of the iconic or indexical kind generate especially simple and remarkably stable sorts of interpretive processes. In arity, they could almost be classified as ''approximately dyadic'', since most of their interesting structure is wrapped up in their denotative aspects, while their connotative functions are relegated to the tangential role of preserving the directions of their denotative axes. In a metaphorical but true sense, iconic and indexical sign relations equip objective frameworks with "gyroscopes", helping them maintain their interpretive perspectives in a persistent orientation toward their objective world.

+

Typical sign relations of the iconic or indexical kind generate especially simple and remarkably stable sorts of interpretive processes. In arity, they could almost be classified as ''approximately dyadic'', since most of their interesting structure is wrapped up in their denotative aspects, while their connotative functions are relegated to the tangential role of preserving the directions of their denotative axes. In a metaphorical but true sense, iconic and indexical sign relations equip objective frameworks with “gyroscopes”, helping them maintain their interpretive perspectives in a persistent orientation toward their objective world.

Of course, every form of sign relation still depends on the agency of a proper interpreter to bring it to life, and every species of sign process stays forever relative to the interpreters that actually bring it to term. But it is a rather special circumstance by means of which the actions of icons and indices are able to turn on the existence of independently meaningful properties and instances, as recognized within an objective framework, and this means that the interpretive associations of these signs are not always as idiosyncratic as they might otherwise be.

Line 1,208: Line 1,222:

Turning to the language of ''objective concerns'', what can now be said about the compositional structures of the iconic sign relation <math>M\!</math> and the indexical sign relation <math>N\!</math>? In preparation for this topic, a few additional steps must be taken to continue formalizing the concept of an objective genre and to begin developing a calculus for composing objective motifs.

−

I recall the objective genre of ''properties and instances'' and re-introduce the symbols <math>\lessdot</math> and <math>\gtrdot</math> for the converse pair of dyadic relations that generate it. Reverting to the convention I employ in formal discussions of applying relational operators on the right, it is convenient to express the relative terms "property of <math>x\!</math>" and "instance of <math>x\!</math>" by means of a case inflection on <math>x\!,</math> that is, as "<math>x\!</math>’s property" and "<math>x\!</math>’s instance", respectively. Described in this way, <math>\operatorname{OG} (\operatorname{Prop}, \operatorname{Inst}) = \langle \lessdot, \gtrdot \rangle,</math> where:

+

I recall the objective genre of ''properties and instances'' and re-introduce the symbols <math>{\lessdot}\!</math> and <math>{\gtrdot}\!</math> for the converse pair of dyadic relations that generate it. Reverting to the convention I employ in formal discussions of applying relational operators on the right, it is convenient to express the relative terms “property of <math>x\!</math>” and “instance of <math>x\!</math>” by means of a case inflection on <math>x,\!</math> that is, as “<math>x\!</math>’s property” and “<math>x\!</math>’s instance”, respectively. Described in this way, <math>\operatorname{OG} (\operatorname{Prop}, \operatorname{Inst}) = \langle \lessdot, \gtrdot \rangle,\!</math> where:

{| align="center" cellpadding="8"

Line 1,224: Line 1,238:

|}

−

A symbol like <math>^{\backprime\backprime} x \lessdot ^{\prime\prime}</math> or <math>^{\backprime\backprime} x \gtrdot ^{\prime\prime}</math> is called a ''catenation'', where <math>^{\backprime\backprime} x ^{\prime\prime}</math> is the ''catenand'' and <math>^{\backprime\backprime} \lessdot ^{\prime\prime}</math> or <math>^{\backprime\backprime} \gtrdot ^{\prime\prime}</math> is the ''catenator''. Due to the fact that <math>^{\backprime\backprime} \lessdot ^{\prime\prime}</math> and <math>^{\backprime\backprime} \gtrdot ^{\prime\prime}</math> indicate dyadic relations, the significance of these so-called ''unsaturated'' catenations can be rationalized as follows:

+

A symbol like <math>^{\backprime\backprime} x \lessdot ^{\prime\prime}\!</math> or <math>^{\backprime\backprime} x \gtrdot ^{\prime\prime}\!</math> is called a ''catenation'', where <math>^{\backprime\backprime} x ^{\prime\prime}\!</math> is the ''catenand'' and <math>^{\backprime\backprime} \lessdot ^{\prime\prime}\!</math> or <math>^{\backprime\backprime} \gtrdot ^{\prime\prime}\!</math> is the ''catenator''. Due to the fact that <math>^{\backprime\backprime} \lessdot ^{\prime\prime}\!</math> and <math>^{\backprime\backprime} \gtrdot ^{\prime\prime}\!</math> indicate dyadic relations, the significance of these so-called ''unsaturated'' catenations can be rationalized as follows:

{| align="center" cellpadding="8"

Line 1,308: Line 1,322:

=====1.3.4.15. Application of OF : Motive Level=====

−

Now that an adequate variety of formal tools have been set in order and the workspace afforded by an objective framework has been rendered reasonably clear, the structural theory of sign relations can be pursued with greater precision. In support of this aim, the concept of an objective genre and the particular example provided by <math>\operatorname{OG} (\operatorname{Prop}, \operatorname{Inst})</math> have served to rough out the basic shapes of the more refined analytic instruments to be developed in this subsection.

+

Now that an adequate variety of formal tools have been set in order and the workspace afforded by an objective framework has been rendered reasonably clear, the structural theory of sign relations can be pursued with greater precision. In support of this aim, the concept of an objective genre and the particular example provided by <math>\operatorname{OG} (\operatorname{Prop}, \operatorname{Inst})\!</math> have served to rough out the basic shapes of the more refined analytic instruments to be developed in this subsection.

−

The notion of an ''objective motive'' or ''objective motif'' (OM) is intended to specialize or personalize the application of objective genres to take particular interpreters into account. For example, pursuing the pattern of <math>\operatorname{OG} (\operatorname{Prop}, \operatorname{Inst})</math>, a prospective OM of this genre does not merely tell about the properties and instances that objects can have in general, it recognizes a particular arrangement of objects and supplies them with its own ontology, giving "a local habitation and a name" to the bunch. What matters to an OM is a particular collection of objects (of thought) and a personal selection of links that go from each object (of thought) to higher and lower objects (of thought), all things being relative to a subjective ontology or a live ''hierarchy of thought'', one that is currently known to and actively pursued by a designated interpreter of those thoughts.

+

The notion of an ''objective motive'' or ''objective motif'' (OM) is intended to specialize or personalize the application of objective genres to take particular interpreters into account. For example, pursuing the pattern of <math>\operatorname{OG} (\operatorname{Prop}, \operatorname{Inst})\!</math>, a prospective OM of this genre does not merely tell about the properties and instances that objects can have in general, it recognizes a particular arrangement of objects and supplies them with its own ontology, giving “a local habitation and a name” to the bunch. What matters to an OM is a particular collection of objects (of thought) and a personal selection of links that go from each object (of thought) to higher and lower objects (of thought), all things being relative to a subjective ontology or a live ''hierarchy of thought'', one that is currently known to and actively pursued by a designated interpreter of those thoughts.

The cautionary details interspersed at critical points in the preceding paragraph are intended to keep this inquiry vigilant against a constant danger of using ontological language, namely, the illusion that one can analyze the being of any real object merely by articulating the grammar of one's own thoughts, that is, simply by parsing signs in the mind. As always, it is best to regard OGs and OMs as ''filters'' and ''reticles'', as transparent templates that are used to view a space, constituting the structures of objects only in one respect at a time, but never with any assurance of totality.

Line 1,316: Line 1,330:

With these refinements, the use of dyadic projections to investigate sign relations can be combined with the perspective of objective motives to ''factor the facets'' or ''decompose the components'' of sign relations in a more systematic fashion. Given a homogeneous sign relation <math>H\!</math> of iconic or indexical type, the dyadic projections <math>H_{OS}\!</math> and <math>H_{OI}\!</math> can be analyzed as compound relations over the basis supplied by the <math>G_j\!</math> in <math>G\!</math>. As an application that is sufficiently important in its own right, the investigation of icons and indices continues to provide a useful testing ground for breaking in likely proposals of concepts and notation.

−

To pursue the analysis of icons and indices at the next stage of formalization, fix the OG of this discussion to have the type <math>\langle \lessdot, \gtrdot \rangle</math> and let each sign relation under discussion be articulated in terms of an objective motif that tells what objects and signs, plus what mediating linkages through properties and instances, are assumed to be recognized by its interpreter.

+

To pursue the analysis of icons and indices at the next stage of formalization, fix the OG of this discussion to have the type <math>\langle \lessdot, \gtrdot \rangle\!</math> and let each sign relation under discussion be articulated in terms of an objective motif that tells what objects and signs, plus what mediating linkages through properties and instances, are assumed to be recognized by its interpreter.

−

Let <math>X\!</math> collect the objects of thought that fall within a particular OM, and let <math>X\!</math> include the whole world of a sign relation plus everything needed to support and contain it. That is, <math>X\!</math> collects all the types of things that go into a sign relation, <math>O \cup S \cup I = W \subseteq X</math>, plus whatever else in the way of distinct object qualities and object exemplars is discovered or established to be generated out of this basis by the relations of the OM.

+

Let <math>X\!</math> collect the objects of thought that fall within a particular OM, and let <math>X\!</math> include the whole world of a sign relation plus everything needed to support and contain it. That is, <math>X\!</math> collects all the types of things that go into a sign relation, <math>O \cup S \cup I = W \subseteq X\!</math>, plus whatever else in the way of distinct object qualities and object exemplars is discovered or established to be generated out of this basis by the relations of the OM.

In order to keep this <math>X\!</math> simple enough to contemplate on a single pass but still make it deep enough to cover the issues of interest at present, I limit <math>X\!</math> to having just three disjoint layers of things to worry about:

Line 1,325: Line 1,339:

| The top layer is the relevant class of object qualities:

|-

−

| <math>Q = X_0 \lessdot = W \lessdot</math>

+

| <math>Q = X_0 \lessdot = W \lessdot\!</math>

|-

| The middle layer is the initial collection of objects and signs:

Line 1,333: Line 1,347:

| The bottom layer is a suitable set of object exemplars:

|-

−

| <math>E = X_0 \gtrdot = W \gtrdot</math>

+

| <math>E = X_0 \gtrdot = W \gtrdot\!</math>

|}

Line 1,339: Line 1,353:

{| align="center" cellpadding="8" style="text-align:center"

−

| <math>h : x \lessdot m</math>

+

| <math>h : x \lessdot m\!</math>

−

| <math>\Leftrightarrow</math>

+

| <math>\Leftrightarrow\!</math>

−

| <math>h ~\operatorname{regards}~ x ~\operatorname{as~an~instance~of}~ m.</math>

+

| <math>h ~\operatorname{regards}~ x ~\operatorname{as~an~instance~of}~ m.\!</math>

|-

−

| <math>h : m \gtrdot y</math>

+

| <math>h : m \gtrdot y\!</math>

−

| <math>\Leftrightarrow</math>

+

| <math>\Leftrightarrow\!</math>

−

| <math>h ~\operatorname{regards}~ m ~\operatorname{as~a~property~of}~ y.</math>

+

| <math>h ~\operatorname{regards}~ m ~\operatorname{as~a~property~of}~ y.\!</math>

|-

−

| <math>h : x \gtrdot n</math>

+

| <math>h : x \gtrdot n\!</math>

−

| <math>\Leftrightarrow</math>

+

| <math>\Leftrightarrow\!</math>

−

| <math>h ~\operatorname{regards}~ x ~\operatorname{as~a~property~of}~ n.</math>

+

| <math>h ~\operatorname{regards}~ x ~\operatorname{as~a~property~of}~ n.\!</math>

|-

−

| <math>h : n \lessdot y</math>

+

| <math>h : n \lessdot y\!</math>

−

| <math>\Leftrightarrow</math>

+

| <math>\Leftrightarrow\!</math>

−

| <math>h ~\operatorname{regards}~ n ~\operatorname{as~an~instance~of}~ y.</math>

+

| <math>h ~\operatorname{regards}~ n ~\operatorname{as~an~instance~of}~ y.\!</math>

|}

Line 1,365: Line 1,379:

| <math>M_{OS}\!</math>

| <math>\colon\!</math>

−

| <math>x \lessdot \gtrdot x \operatorname{'s~Sign}.</math>

+

| <math>x \lessdot \gtrdot x \operatorname{'s~Sign}.\!</math>

|-

| <math>\text{For Indices:}\!</math>

Line 1,371: Line 1,385:

| <math>N_{OS}\!</math>

| <math>\colon\!</math>

−

| <math>x \gtrdot \lessdot x \operatorname{'s~Sign}.</math>

+

| <math>x \gtrdot \lessdot x \operatorname{'s~Sign}.\!</math>

|}

Line 1,400: Line 1,414:

| <math>j\!</math>

| <math>\colon\!</math>

−

| <math>x \lessdot \gtrdot x \operatorname{'s~Sign}.</math>

+

| <math>x \lessdot \gtrdot x \operatorname{'s~Sign}.\!</math>

|-

| <math>\text{For Indices:}\!</math>

Line 1,406: Line 1,420:

| <math>k\!</math>

| <math>\colon\!</math>

−

| <math>x \gtrdot \lessdot x \operatorname{'s~Sign}.</math>

+

| <math>x \gtrdot \lessdot x \operatorname{'s~Sign}.\!</math>

|}

Line 1,438: Line 1,452:

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 <math>\text{A}</math> and <math>\text{B}</math> it was allowed that the same signs <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}</math> and <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{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.

+

In the discussion of the dialogue between <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math> it was allowed that the same signs <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> and <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{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=====

Line 1,455: Line 1,469:

To express the nature of this integration task in logical terms, it combines elements of both proof theory and model theory, interweaving: (1) A phase that develops theories about the symbolic competence or ''knowledge'' of intelligent agents, using abstract formal systems to represent the theories and phenomenological data to constrain them; (2) A phase that seeks concrete models of these theories, looking to the kinds of mathematical structure that have a dynamic or system-theoretic interpretation, and compiling the constraints that a recursive conceptual analysis imposes on the ultimate elements of their construction.

−

The set of sign relations <math>\{ L_\text{A}, L_\text{B} \}</math> is an example of an extremely simple formal system, encapsulating aspects of the symbolic competence and the pragmatic performance that might be exhibited by potentially intelligent interpretive agents, however abstractly and partially given at this stage of description. The symbols of a formal system like <math>\{ L_\text{A}, L_\text{B} \}</math> can be held subject to abstract constraints, having their meanings in relation to each other determined by definitions and axioms (for example, the laws defining an equivalence relation), making it possible to manipulate the resulting information by means of the inference rules in a proof system. This illustrates the ''proof-theoretic'' aspect of a symbol system.

+

The set of sign relations <math>\{ L_\text{A}, L_\text{B} \}\!</math> is an example of an extremely simple formal system, encapsulating aspects of the symbolic competence and the pragmatic performance that might be exhibited by potentially intelligent interpretive agents, however abstractly and partially given at this stage of description. The symbols of a formal system like <math>\{ L_\text{A}, L_\text{B} \}\!</math> can be held subject to abstract constraints, having their meanings in relation to each other determined by definitions and axioms (for example, the laws defining an equivalence relation), making it possible to manipulate the resulting information by means of the inference rules in a proof system. This illustrates the ''proof-theoretic'' aspect of a symbol system.

−

Suppose that a formal system like <math>\{ L_\text{A}, L_\text{B} \}</math> is initially approached from a theoretical direction, in other words, by listing the abstract properties one thinks it ought to have. Then the existence of an extensional model that satisfies these constraints, as exhibited by the sign relation tables, demonstrates that one's theoretical description is logically consistent, even if the models that first come to mind are still a bit too abstractly symbolic and do not have all the dynamic concreteness that is demanded of system-theoretic interpretations. This amounts to the other side of the ledger, the ''model-theoretic'' aspect of a symbol system, at least insofar as the present account has dealt with it.

+

Suppose that a formal system like <math>\{ L_\text{A}, L_\text{B} \}\!</math> is initially approached from a theoretical direction, in other words, by listing the abstract properties one thinks it ought to have. Then the existence of an extensional model that satisfies these constraints, as exhibited by the sign relation tables, demonstrates that one's theoretical description is logically consistent, even if the models that first come to mind are still a bit too abstractly symbolic and do not have all the dynamic concreteness that is demanded of system-theoretic interpretations. This amounts to the other side of the ledger, the ''model-theoretic'' aspect of a symbol system, at least insofar as the present account has dealt with it.

−

More is required of the modeler, however, in order to find the desired kinds of system-theoretic models (for example, state transition systems), and this brings the search for realizations of formal systems down to the toughest part of the exercise. Some of the problems that emerge were highlighted in the example of <math>\text{A}</math> and <math>\text{B}</math>. Although it is ordinarily possible to construct state transition systems in which the states of interpreters correspond relatively directly to the acceptations of the primitive signs given, the conflict of interpretations that develops between different interpreters from these prima facie implementations is a sign that there is something superficial about this approach.

+

More is required of the modeler, however, in order to find the desired kinds of system-theoretic models (for example, state transition systems), and this brings the search for realizations of formal systems down to the toughest part of the exercise. Some of the problems that emerge were highlighted in the example of <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math>. Although it is ordinarily possible to construct state transition systems in which the states of interpreters correspond relatively directly to the acceptations of the primitive signs given, the conflict of interpretations that develops between different interpreters from these prima facie implementations is a sign that there is something superficial about this approach.

The integration of model-theoretic and proof-theoretic aspects of ''physical symbol systems'', besides being closely analogous to the integration of denotative and connotative aspects of sign relations, is also relevant to the job of integrating dynamic and symbolic frameworks for intelligent systems. This is so because the search for dynamic realizations of symbol systems is only a more pointed exercise in model theory, where the mathematical materials made available for modeling are further constrained by system-theoretic principles, like being able to say what the states are and how the transitions are determined.

Line 1,465: Line 1,479:

=====1.3.4.17. Recapitulation : A Brush with Symbols=====

−

A common goal of work in artificial intelligence and cognitive simulation is to understand how is it possible for intelligent life to evolve from elements available in the primordial sea. Simply put, the question is: "What's in the brine that ink may character?"

+

A common goal of work in artificial intelligence and cognitive simulation is to understand how is it possible for intelligent life to evolve from elements available in the primordial sea. Simply put, the question is: “What's in the brine that ink may character?”

Pursuant to this particular way of setting out on the long-term quest, a more immediate goal of the current project is to understand the action of full-fledged symbols, insofar as they conduct themselves through the media of minds and quasi-minds. At this very point the quest is joined by the pragmatic investigations of signs and inquiry, which share this interest in chasing down symbols to their precursive lairs.

Line 1,527: Line 1,541:

At last, even with the needed frameworks only partly shored up, I can finally ravel up and tighten one thread of this rambling investigation. All this time, steadily rising to answer the challenge about the identity of the interpreter, ''Who's there?'', and the role of the interpretant, ''Stand and unfold yourself'', has been the ready and abiding state of a certain system of interpretation, developing its character and gradually evolving its meaning through a series of imputations and extensions. Namely, the MOI (the SOI experienced as an object) can answer for the interpreter, to whatever extent that conduct can be formalized, and the IM (the SOI experienced in action, in statu nascendi) can serve as a proxy for the momentary thrust of interpretive dynamics, to whatever degree that process can be explicated.

−

To put a finer point on this result I can do no better at this stage of discussion than to recount the "metaphorical argument" that Peirce often used to illustrate the same conclusion.

+

To put a finer point on this result I can do no better at this stage of discussion than to recount the “metaphorical argument” that Peirce often used to illustrate the same conclusion.

{| align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="90%"

Line 1,559: Line 1,573:

{| align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="90%"

|

−

"Knowledge" is a referring back: in its essence a regressus in infinitum. That which comes to a standstill (at a supposed causa prima, at something unconditioned, etc.) is laziness, weariness —

+

“Knowledge” is a referring back: in its essence a regressus in infinitum. That which comes to a standstill (at a supposed causa prima, at something unconditioned, etc.) is laziness, weariness —

|-

| align="right" | — Nietzsche, ''The Will to Power'', [Nie, S575, 309]

|}

−

With this preamble, I return to develop my own account of formalization, with special attention to the kind of step that leads from the inchoate chaos of casual discourse to a well-founded discussion of formal models. A formalization step, of the incipient kind being considered here, has the peculiar property that one can say with some definiteness where it ends, since it leads precisely to a well-defined formal model, but not with any definiteness where it begins. Any attempt to trace the steps of formalization backward toward their ultimate beginnings can lead to an interminable multiplicity of open-ended explorations. In view of these circumstances, ~~let me~~ limit my attention to the frame of the present inquiry and try to sum up what brings me to this point.

+

With this preamble, I return to develop my own account of formalization, with special attention to the kind of step that leads from the inchoate chaos of casual discourse to a well-founded discussion of formal models. A formalization step, of the incipient kind being considered here, has the peculiar property that one can say with some definiteness where it ends, since it leads precisely to a well-defined formal model, but not with any definiteness where it begins. Any attempt to trace the steps of formalization backward toward their ultimate beginnings can lead to an interminable multiplicity of open-ended explorations. In view of these circumstances, I will limit my attention to the frame of the present inquiry and try to sum up what brings me to this point.

−

It begins like this: I ask whether it is possible to reason about inquiry in a way that leads to a productive end. I pose ~~this~~ question as an inquiry into inquiry, and I use the formula <math>y_0 = y \cdot y</math> to express the relationship between the present inquiry, <math>y_0\!</math>, and a generic inquiry, <math>y\!</math>. Then I propose a couple of components of inquiry, discussion and formalization, that appear to be worth investigating, expressing this proposal in the form <math>y >\!\!= \{ d, f \}</math>. Applying these components to each other, as must be done in the present inquiry, I am led to the current discussion of formalization, <math>y_0 = y \cdot y >\!\!= f \cdot d</math>.

+

It begins like this: I ask whether it is possible to reason about inquiry in a way that leads to a productive end. I pose my question as an inquiry into inquiry, and I use the formula <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} y_0 = y \cdot y {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> to express the relationship between the present inquiry, <math>y_0,\!</math> and a generic inquiry, <math>y.\!</math> Then I propose a couple of components of inquiry, discussion and formalization, that appear to be worth investigating, expressing this proposal in the form <math>y >\!\!= \{ d, f \}.\!</math> Applying these components to each other, as must be done in the present inquiry, I am led to the current discussion of formalization, <math>y_0 = y \cdot y >\!\!= f \cdot d.\!</math>

−

There is already much to question here. At least, so many repetitions of the same mysterious formula are bound to lead the reader to question its meaning.

+

There is already much to question here. At least, so many repetitions of the same mysterious formula are bound to lead the reader to question its meaning. Some of the more obvious issues that arise are these:

−

<li> The term ''generic inquiry'' is ambiguous. Its meaning in practice depends on whether the description of an inquiry as being generic is interpreted literally or merely as a figure of speech. In the literal case, the name <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} y {}^{\prime\prime}</math> denotes a particular inquiry, <math>y \in Y\!</math>, one that is assumed to be prototypical in yet to be specified ways. In the figurative case, the name <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} y {}^{\prime\prime}</math> is simply a variable that ranges over a collection <math>Y\!</math> of nominally conceivable inquiries.</li>

+

<li> The term ''generic inquiry'' is ambiguous. Its meaning in practice depends on whether the description of an inquiry as being generic is interpreted literally or merely as a figure of speech. In the literal case, the name <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} y {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> denotes a particular inquiry, <math>y \in Y,\!</math> one that is assumed to be prototypical in yet to be specified ways. In the figurative case, the name <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} y {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> is simply a variable that ranges over a collection <math>Y\!</math> of nominally conceivable inquiries.</li>

−

<li> ~~On first reading~~, the recipe <math>y_0 = y \cdot y</math> appears to specify that the present inquiry is constituted by taking everything denoted by the most general concept of inquiry that the present inquirer can imagine and inquiring into it by means of the most general capacity for inquiry that this same inquirer can muster.</li>

+

<li> First encountered, the recipe <math>y_0 = y \cdot y\!</math> appears to specify that the present inquiry is constituted by taking everything denoted by the most general concept of inquiry that the present inquirer can imagine and inquiring into it by means of the most general capacity for inquiry that this same inquirer can muster.</li>

−

<li> ~~Given~~ the formula <math>y_0 = y \cdot y</math>, the subordination <math>y >\!\!= \{ d, f \}</math>, and the successive containments <math>F \subseteq M \subseteq D</math>, the <math>y\!</math> that ~~looks~~ into <math>y\!</math> is not restricted to examining <math>y \operatorname{'s}</math> immediate subordinates, <math>d\!</math> and <math>f\!</math>, but it can investigate any feature of <math>y \operatorname{'s}</math> overall context, whether objective, syntactic, interpretive, whether definitive or incidental, and finally it can question any supporting claim of the discussion. Moreover, the question <math>y\!</math> is not limited to the particular claims that are being made here, but applies to the abstract relations and the general ~~notions~~ that are invoked in making them. Among the many kinds of inquiry that suggest themselves, there are the following possibilities:</li>

+

<li> Contemplating the formula <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} y_0 = y \cdot y {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> in the context of the subordination <math>y >\!\!= \{ d, f \}\!</math> and the successive containments <math>F \subseteq M \subseteq D,\!</math> the <math>y\!</math> that inquires into <math>y\!</math> is not restricted to examining <math>y \operatorname{'s}\!</math> immediate subordinates, <math>d\!</math> and <math>f,\!</math> but it can investigate any feature of <math>y \operatorname{'s}\!</math> overall context, whether objective, syntactic, interpretive, and whether definitive or incidental, and finally it can question any supporting claim of the discussion. Moreover, the question <math>y\!</math> is not limited to the particular claims that are being made here, but applies to the abstract relations and the general concepts that are invoked in making them. Among the many kinds of inquiry that suggest themselves, there are the following possibilities:</li>

−

<li> Inquiry into propositions about application and equality.~~ Start~~ with the formula <math>y_0 = y \cdot y</math> itself.</li>

+

<li> Inquiry into propositions about application and equality. One may well begin with the forms of application and equality that are invoked in the formula <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} y_0 = y \cdot y {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> itself.</li>

−

<li> Inquiry into application (~~ ~~<math>\cdot</math>~~ )~~.</li>

+

<li> Inquiry into application <math>(\cdot),\!</math> for example, the way that the term <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} y \cdot y {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> indicates the application of <math>y\!</math> to <math>y\!</math> in the formula <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} y_0 = y \cdot y {}^{\prime\prime}.\!</math></li>

−

<li> Inquiry into equality (<math>=\!</math>).</li>

+

<li> Inquiry into equality <math>(=),\!</math> for example, the meaning of the equal sign in the formula <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} y_0 = y \cdot y {}^{\prime\prime}.\!</math></li>

−

<li> Inquiry into indices (for example, the <math>0</math> in <math>y_0\!</math>).</li>

+

<li> Inquiry into indices, for example, the significance of <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} 0 {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> in <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} y_0 {}^{\prime\prime}.\!</math></li>

−

<li> Inquiry into terms, ~~namely~~, constants and variables.~~ ~~What are the functions of <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} y {}^{\prime\prime}</math> and <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} y_0 {}^{\prime\prime}</math> in this respect?</li>

+

<li> Inquiry into terms, specifically, constants and variables. What are the functions of <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} y {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> and <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} y_0 {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> in this respect?</li>

−

<li> Inquiry into decomposition or subordination (<math>>\!\!=</math>).</li>

+

<li> Inquiry into decomposition or subordination, for example, as invoked by the sign <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} >\!\!= {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> in the formula <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} y >\!\!= \{ d, f \} {}^{\prime\prime}.\!</math></li>

−

<li> Inquiry into containment or inclusion. In particular, examine the assumption that formalization <math>F</math>, mediation <math>M</math>, and discussion <math>D</math> are ordered as <math>F \subseteq M \subseteq D</math>, a claim that determines the chances that a formalization has an object, the degree to which a formalization can be carried out by means of a discussion, and the extent to which an object of formalization can be conveyed by a form of discussion.</li>

+

<li> Inquiry into containment or inclusion. In particular, examine the assumption that formalization <math>F\!</math>, mediation <math>M\!</math>, and discussion <math>D\!</math> are ordered as <math>F \subseteq M \subseteq D\!</math>, a claim that determines the chances that a formalization has an object, the degree to which a formalization can be carried out by means of a discussion, and the extent to which an object of formalization can be conveyed by a form of discussion.</li>

</ol></ol>

−

If inquiry begins in doubt, then inquiry into inquiry begins in doubt about doubt. All things considered, the formula <math>y_0 = y \cdot y</math> has to be taken as the first attempt at a description of the problem, a hypothesis about the nature of inquiry, or an image that is tossed out by way of getting an initial fix on the object in question. Everything in this account so far, and everything else that I am likely to add, can only be reckoned as hypothesis, whose accuracy, pertinence, and usefulness can be tested, judged, and redeemed only after the fact of proposing it and after the facts to which it refers have themselves been gathered up.

+

If inquiry begins in doubt, then inquiry into inquiry begins in doubt about doubt. All things considered, the formula <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} y_0 = y \cdot y {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> has to be taken as the first attempt at a description of the problem, a hypothesis about the nature of inquiry, or an image that is tossed out by way of getting an initial fix on the object in question. Everything in this account so far, and everything else that I am likely to add, can only be reckoned as hypothesis, whose accuracy, pertinence, and usefulness can be tested, judged, and redeemed only after the fact of proposing it and after the facts to which it refers have themselves been gathered up.

A number of problems present themselves due to the context in which the present inquiry is aimed to present itself. The hypothesis that suggests itself to one person, as worth exploring at a particular time, does not always present itself to another person as worth exploring at the same time, or even necessarily to the same person at another time. In a community of inquiry that extends beyond an isolated person and in a process of inquiry that extends beyond a singular moment in time, it is therefore necessary to consider the nature of the communication process that the discussion of inquiry in general and the discussion of formalization in particular need to invoke for their ultimate utility.

−

~~Solitude and solipsism are~~ no solution to the problems of community ~~and communication~~, since even an isolated individual, if ever there ~~was, is, or comes to be~~ such a thing, ~~has~~ to maintain the lines of communication that ~~are required~~ to integrate past, present, and prospective selves — ~~in other words,~~ translating everything into present ~~terms~~, the parts of one's actually present self that involve actual experiences and present observations, present expectations as reflective of actual memories, and present intentions as reflective of actual hopes. So the dialogue that one holds with oneself is every bit as problematic as the dialogue that one ~~enters~~ with others. Others ~~only~~ surprise ~~one~~ in other ways than ~~one~~ ordinarily ~~surprises oneself~~.

+

Solipsism is no solution to the problems of community, since even an isolated individual, if ever there were such a thing, would have to maintain the lines of communication that it takes to integrate past, present, and prospective selves — or translating everything into the present, the parts of one's actually present self that involve actual experiences and present observations, present expectations as reflective of actual memories, and present intentions as reflective of actual hopes. So the dialogue that one holds with oneself is every bit as problematic as the dialogue that one holds with others. Others but surprise us in other ways than we ordinarily surprise ourselves.

−

I recognize inquiry as beginning with a ''surprising phenomenon'' or a ''problematic situation'', more briefly described as a ''surprise'' or a ''problem'', respectively. These are the ~~types~~ of moments that try our souls, the instances of events that instigate inquiry as an effort to achieve their own resolution. Surprises and problems are experienced as afflicted with an irritating uncertainty or a compelling difficulty, one that calls for a response on the part of the agent in question:

+

I recognize inquiry as beginning with a ''surprising phenomenon'' or a ''problematic situation'', more briefly described as a ''surprise'' or a ''problem'', respectively. These are the kinds of moments that try our souls, the instances of events that instigate inquiry as an effort to achieve their own resolution. Surprises and problems are experienced as afflicted with an irritating uncertainty or a compelling difficulty, one that calls for a response on the part of the agent in question:

Line 1,610: Line 1,624:

<li> A ''problem'' calls for a plan of action to resolve the difficulty that is present in it. This difficulty is associated with a difference between observations and intentions.

−

To express this diversity in a unified formula, both types of inquiry begin with a ''delta'' <math>(\Delta)</math>, a compact symbol that admits a spectrum of expansions: debt, difference, difficulty, discrepancy, dispersion, distribution, doubt, duplicity, or duty.</li>

+

To express this diversity in a unified formula, both types of inquiry begin with a ''delta'' <math>(\Delta),\!</math> a compact symbol that admits a spectrum of expansions: debt, difference, difficulty, discrepancy, dispersion, distribution, doubt, duplicity, or duty.</li>

</ol>

−

Expressed another way, inquiry begins with a doubt about one's object, whether this means what is true of a case, an object, or a world, what to do about reaching a goal, or whether the hoped-for goal is really good for oneself — with all that these questions lead to in essence, in ~~deed~~, or in fact.

+

Expressed another way, inquiry begins with a doubt about one's object, whether this means what is true of a case, an object, or a world, what to do about reaching a goal, or whether the hoped-for goal is really good for oneself — with all that these questions lead to in essence, in action, or in fact.

Perhaps there is an inexhaustible reality that issues in these apparent mysteries and recurrent crises, but, by the time I say this much, I am already indulging in a finite image, a hypothesis about what is going on. If nothing else, then, one finds again the familiar pattern, where the formative relation between the informal and the formal merely serves to remind one anew of the relation between the infinite and the finite.

Line 1,622: Line 1,636:

{| align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="90%"

|

−

The power of form, the will to give form to oneself. "Happiness" admitted as a goal. Much strength and energy behind the emphasis on forms. The delight in looking at a life that seems so easy. — To the French, the Greeks looked like children.

+

The power of form, the will to give form to oneself. “Happiness” admitted as a goal. Much strength and energy behind the emphasis on forms. The delight in looking at a life that seems so easy. — To the French, the Greeks looked like children.

|-

| align="right" | — Nietzsche, ''The Will to Power'', [Nie, S94, 58]

|}

−

Let me see if can summarize as quickly as possible the problem that I see before me. ~~Each time~~ that I try to express my experience, to lend it a form that others can recognize, to put it in a shape that I myself can later recall, or to store it in a state that allows me the chance of its re-experience, I generate an image of the way things are, or at least a description of how things seem to me. I call this process ''reflection'', since it fabricates an image in a medium of signs that reflects an aspect of experience. ~~Often~~ this experience ~~can be~~ said to be ''of'' — what? — something that exists or persists at least ~~partially~~ outside the immediate experience, some action, event, or object that is imagined to inform the present experience, or perhaps some conduct of one's own that obtrudes for a moment into the world of others and meets with a reaction there. In all of these cases, where the experience is everted to refer to an object and becomes the attribute of something with an external aspect, something that is thus supposed to be a prior cause of the experience, the reflection on experience doubles as a reflection on that conduct, performance, or transaction that the experience is an experience ''of''. In short, if the experience has an eversion that makes it ''of'' an object, then its reflection is again a reflection that is ~~also~~ ''of'' this object.

+

Let me see if I can summarize as quickly as possible the problem that I see before me. On each occasion that I try to express my experience, to lend it a form that others can recognize, to put it in a shape that I myself can later recall, or to store it in a state that allows me the chance of its re-experience, I generate an image of the way things are, or at least a description of how things seem to me. I call this process ''reflection'', since it fabricates an image in a medium of signs that reflects an aspect of experience. Very often this experience is said to be ''of'' — what? — something that exists or persists at least partly outside the immediate experience, some action, event, or object that is imagined to inform the present experience, or perhaps some conduct of one's own doing that obtrudes for a moment into the world of others and meets with a reaction there. In all of these cases, where the experience is everted to refer to an object and thus becomes the attribute of something with an external aspect, something that is thus supposed to be a prior cause of the experience, the reflection on experience doubles as a reflection on that conduct, performance, or transaction that the experience is an experience ''of''. In short, if the experience has an eversion that makes it an experience ''of'' an object, then its reflection is again a reflection that is once again ''of'' this object.

−

Just at the point ~~where one threatens to become~~ lost in the morass of words for describing experience and the nuances of their interpretation, one can adopt a formal perspective, and realize that the relation among objects, experiences, and reflective images is formally analogous to the relation among objects, signs, and interpretant signs that is covered by the pragmatic theory of signs. ~~One still has the~~ problem: How are the expressions of experience everted to form the exterior faces of extended objects and exploited to embed them in their external circumstances, and no matter whether this object with an outer face is oneself or another? Here, one needs to understand that expressions of experience include the original experiences themselves, at least, to the extent that they permit themselves to be recognized and reflected in ongoing experience. But now, from the formal point of view, ~~"how"~~ means only: To describe the formal conditions of a formal possibility.

+

Just on the point of becoming lost in the morass of words for describing experience and the nuances of their interpretation, one can adopt a formal perspective, and realize that the relation among objects, experiences, and reflective images is formally analogous to the relation among objects, signs, and interpretant signs that is covered by the pragmatic theory of signs. The problem remains: ''How'' are the expressions of experience everted to form the exterior faces of extended objects and exploited to embed them in their external circumstances, and no matter whether this object with an outer face is oneself or another? Here, one needs to understand that expressions of experience include the original experiences themselves, at least, to the extent that they permit themselves to be recognized and reflected in ongoing experience. But now, from the formal point of view, ''How'' means only: To describe the formal conditions of a formal possibility.

=====1.3.5.2. The Forms of Reasoning=====

Line 1,642: Line 1,656:

A certain arbitrariness has to be faced in the terms that one uses to talk about reasoning, to split it up into different parts and to sort it out into different types. It is like the arbitrary choice that one makes in assigning the midpoint of an interval to the subintervals on its sides. In setting out the forms of a nomenclature, in fitting the schemes of my terminology to the territory that it disturbs in the process of mapping, I cannot avoid making arbitrary choices, but I can aim for a strategy that is flexible enough to recognize its own alternatives and to accommodate the other options that lie within their scope.

−

If I make the mark of deduction the fact that it reduces the number of terms, as it moves from the grounds to the end of an argument, then I am due to devise a name for the process that augments the number of terms, and thus prepares the grounds for any account of experience.

+

If I make the mark of ''deduction'' the fact that it reduces the number of terms, as it moves from the grounds to the end of an argument, then I am due to devise a name for the process that augments the number of terms, and thus prepares the grounds for any account of experience.

+

: What name hints at the many ways that signs arise in regard to things?

+

: What name covers the manifest ways that a map takes over its territory?

+

: What name fits this naming of names, these proceedings that inaugurate a sign in the first place, that duly install it on the office of a term?

−

What name hints at the many ways that signs arise in regard to things? What name covers the manifest ways that a map takes over its territory? What name fits this naming of names, these proceedings that inaugurate a sign in the first place, that duly install it on the office of a term? What name suits all the actions of addition, annexation, incursion, and invention that instigate the initial bearing of signs on an object domain?

+

: What name suits all the actions of addition, annexation, incursion, and invention that instigate the initial bearing of signs on an object domain?

In the interests of a ''maximal analytic precision'' (MAP), it is fitting that I should try to sharpen this notion to the point where it applies purely to a simple act, that of entering a new term on the lists, in effect, of enlisting a new term to the ongoing account of experience. Thus, let me style this process as ''adduction'' or ''production'', in spite of the fact that the aim of precision is partially blunted by the circumstance that these words have well-worn uses in other contexts. In this way, I can isolate to some degree the singular step of adding a term, leaving it to a later point to distinguish the role that it plays in an argument.

Line 1,658: Line 1,678:

{| align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="90%"

|

−

On "logical semblance" — The concepts "individual" and "species" equally false and merely apparent. "Species" expresses only the fact that an abundance of similar creatures appear at the same time and that the tempo of their further growth and change is for a long time slowed down, so actual small continuations and increases are not very much noticed (— a phase of evolution in which the evolution is not visible, so an equilibrium seems to have been attained, making possible the false notion that a goal has been attained — and that evolution has a goal —).

+

On “logical semblance” — The concepts “individual” and “species” equally false and merely apparent. “Species” expresses only the fact that an abundance of similar creatures appear at the same time and that the tempo of their further growth and change is for a long time slowed down, so actual small continuations and increases are not very much noticed (— a phase of evolution in which the evolution is not visible, so an equilibrium seems to have been attained, making possible the false notion that a goal has been attained — and that evolution has a goal —).

|-

| align="right" | — Nietzsche, ''The Will to Power'', [Nie, S521, 282]

|}

−

It is worth trying to discover, as I currently am, how many properties of inquiry can be derived from the simple fact that it needs to be able to apply to itself. I find three main ways to approach ~~this issue,~~ the problem of inquiry's self-application, or the question of ~~its~~ reflexivity:

+

It is worth trying to discover, as I currently am, how many properties of inquiry can be derived from the simple fact that it needs to be able to apply to itself. I find three main ways to approach the problem of inquiry's self-application, or the question of inquiry's reflexivity:

−

# One way attempts to continue the derivation in the manner of a necessary deduction, perhaps by reasoning in the following vein: If self-application is a property of inquiry, then it is sensible to inquire into the concept of application that ~~makes~~ this conceivable, and not just conceivable, but potentially fruitful.

+

# One way attempts to continue the derivation in the manner of a necessary deduction, perhaps by reasoning in the following vein: If self-application is a property of inquiry, then it is sensible to inquire into the concept of application that could make this conceivable, and not just conceivable, but potentially fruitful.

# Another way breaks off the attempt at a deductive development and puts forth a full-scale model of inquiry, one that has enough plausibility to be probated in the court of experience and enough specificity to be tested in the context of self-application.

−

# The last way is a bit ambivalent in its indications, seeking as it does both the original unity and the ultimate synthesis at one and the same time. Perhaps it goes toward reversing the steps that lead up to this juncture, marking it down as an impasse, chalking it up as a learning experience, or admitting the failure of the imagined distinction to make a difference in reality. Whether this form of egress is ~~interpreted~~ as a backtracking correction or as a leaping forward to the next level of integration, it serves to erase the distinction between demonstration and exploration.

+

# The last way is a bit ambivalent in its indications, seeking as it does both the original unity and the ultimate synthesis at one and the same time. Perhaps it goes toward reversing the steps that lead up to this juncture, marking it down as an impasse, chalking it up as a learning experience, or admitting the failure of the imagined distinction to make a difference in reality. Whether this form of egress is read as a backtracking correction or as a leaping forward to the next level of integration, it serves to erase the distinction between demonstration and exploration.

Without a clear sense of how many properties of inquiry are necessary consequences of its self-application and how many are merely accessory to it, or even whether some contradiction still lies lurking within the notion of reflexivity, I have no choice but to follow all three lines of inquiry wherever they lead, keeping an eye out for the synchronicities, the constructive collusions and the destructive collisions that may happen to occur among them.

−

The fictions that one ~~introduces~~ to shore up a shaky account of experience can often be discharged at a later stage of development, gradually ~~replacing them~~ with primitive elements of less and less dubious characters. Hypostases and hypotheses, the creative terms and the inventive propositions that one ~~invokes~~ to account for otherwise ineffable experiences, are tokens that are subject to a later account. Under recurring examination, many such tokens are found to be ciphers, marks that no one will miss if they ~~come to be cancelled~~ out altogether. The symbolic currencies that tend to survive lend themselves to being exchanged for stronger and more settled constructions, in other words, for concrete definitions and explicit demonstrations, gradually leading to primitive elements of more and more durable utilities.

+

The fictions that one devises to shore up a shaky account of experience can often be discharged at a later stage of development, gradually coming to be replaced with primitive elements of less and less dubious characters. Hypostases and hypotheses, the creative terms and the inventive propositions that one coins to account for otherwise ineffable experiences, are tokens that are subject to a later account. Under recurring examination, many such tokens are found to be ciphers, marks that no one will miss if they are canceled out altogether. The symbolic currencies that tend to survive lend themselves to being exchanged for stronger and more settled constructions, in other words, for concrete definitions and explicit demonstrations, gradually leading to primitive elements of more and more durable utilities.

=====1.3.5.4. A Forged Bond=====

Line 1,676: Line 1,697:

{| align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="90%"

|

−

The form counts as something enduring and therefore more valuable; but the form has merely been invented by us; and however often "the same form is attained", it does not mean that it is the same form — what appears is always something new, and it is only we, who are always comparing, who include the new, to the extent that it is similar to the old, in the unity of the "form". As if a type should be attained and, as it were, was intended by and inherent in the process of formation.

+

The form counts as something enduring and therefore more valuable; but the form has merely been invented by us; and however often “the same form is attained”, it does not mean that it is the same form — what appears is always something new, and it is only we, who are always comparing, who include the new, to the extent that it is similar to the old, in the unity of the “form”. As if a type should be attained and, as it were, was intended by and inherent in the process of formation.

|-

| align="right" | — Nietzsche, ''The Will to Power'', [Nie, S521, 282]

Line 1,687: Line 1,708:

{| align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="90%"

|

−

Form, species, law, idea, purpose — in all these cases the same error is made of giving a false reality to a fiction, as if events were in some way obedient to something — an artificial distinction is made in respect of events between that which acts and that toward which the act is directed (but this "which" and this "toward" are only posited in obedience to our metaphysical-logical dogmatism: they are not "facts").

+

Form, species, law, idea, purpose — in all these cases the same error is made of giving a false reality to a fiction, as if events were in some way obedient to something — an artificial distinction is made in respect of events between that which acts and that toward which the act is directed (but this “which” and this “toward” are only posited in obedience to our metaphysical-logical dogmatism: they are not “facts”).

|-

| align="right" | — Nietzsche, ''The Will to Power'', [Nie, S521, 282]

Line 1,704: Line 1,725:

{| align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="90%"

|

−

One should not understand this compulsion to construct concepts, species, forms, purposes, laws ("a world of identical cases") as if they enabled us to fix the real world; but as a compulsion to arrange a world for ourselves in which our existence is made possible: — we thereby create a world which is calculable, simplified, comprehensible, etc., for us.

+

One should not understand this compulsion to construct concepts, species, forms, purposes, laws (“a world of identical cases”) as if they enabled us to fix the real world; but as a compulsion to arrange a world for ourselves in which our existence is made possible: — we thereby create a world which is calculable, simplified, comprehensible, etc., for us.

|-

| align="right" | — Nietzsche, ''The Will to Power''. [Nie, S521, 282]

Line 1,719: Line 1,740:

{| align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="90%"

|

−

This same compulsion exists in the sense activities that support reason — by simplification, coarsening, emphasizing, and elaborating, upon which all "recognition", all ability to make oneself intelligible rests. Our needs have made our senses so precise that the "same apparent world" always reappears and has thus acquired the semblance of reality.

+

This same compulsion exists in the sense activities that support reason — by simplification, coarsening, emphasizing, and elaborating, upon which all “recognition”, all ability to make oneself intelligible rests. Our needs have made our senses so precise that the “same apparent world” always reappears and has thus acquired the semblance of reality.

|-

| align="right" | — Nietzsche, ''The Will to Power'', [Nie, S521, 282]

Line 1,734: Line 1,755:

{| align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="90%"

|

−

Our subjective compulsion to believe in logic only reveals that, long before logic itself entered our consciousness, we did nothing but introduce its postulates into events: now we discover them in events — we can no longer do otherwise — and imagine that this compulsion guarantees something connected with "truth".

+

Our subjective compulsion to believe in logic only reveals that, long before logic itself entered our consciousness, we did nothing but introduce its postulates into events: now we discover them in events — we can no longer do otherwise — and imagine that this compulsion guarantees something connected with “truth”.

|-

| align="right" | — Nietzsche, ''The Will to Power'', [Nie, S521, 282–283]

Line 1,749: Line 1,770:

{| align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="90%"

|

−

It is we who created the "thing", the "identical thing", subject, attribute, activity, object, substance, form, after we had long pursued the process of making identical, coarse and simple. The world seems logical to us because we have made it logical.

+

It is we who created the “thing”, the “identical thing”, subject, attribute, activity, object, substance, form, after we had long pursued the process of making identical, coarse and simple. The world seems logical to us because we have made it logical.

|-

| align="right" | — Nietzsche, ''The Will to Power'', [Nie, S521, 283]

Line 1,773: Line 1,794:

{| align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="90%"

|

−

Now we read disharmonies and problems into things because we think only in the form of language — and thus believe in the "eternal truth" of "reason" (e.g., subject, attribute, etc.)

+

Now we read disharmonies and problems into things because we think only in the form of language — and thus believe in the “eternal truth” of “reason” (e.g., subject, attribute, etc.)

|-

| align="right" | — Nietzsche, ''The Will to Power'', [Nie, S522, 283]

Line 1,818: Line 1,839:

{| align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="90%"

|

−

Nothing is more erroneous than to make of psychical and physical phenomena the two faces, the two revelations of one and the same substance. Nothing is explained thereby: the concept "substance" is perfectly useless as an explanation. Consciousness in a subsidiary role, almost indifferent, superfluous, perhaps destined to vanish and give way to a perfect automatism —

+

Nothing is more erroneous than to make of psychical and physical phenomena the two faces, the two revelations of one and the same substance. Nothing is explained thereby: the concept “substance” is perfectly useless as an explanation. Consciousness in a subsidiary role, almost indifferent, superfluous, perhaps destined to vanish and give way to a perfect automatism —

|-

| align="right" | — Nietzsche, ''The Will to Power'', [Nie, S523, 283]

Line 1,849: Line 1,870:

{| align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="90%"

|

−

Before there is "thought" (gedacht) there must have been "invention" (gedichtet); the construction of identical cases, of the appearance of sameness, is more primitive than the knowledge of sameness.

+

Before there is “thought” (gedacht) there must have been “invention” (gedichtet); the construction of identical cases, of the appearance of sameness, is more primitive than the knowledge of sameness.

|-

| align="right" | Nietzsche, ''The Will to Power'', [Nie, S544, 293]

Line 1,860: Line 1,881:

Will to truth is a making firm, a making true and durable, an abolition of the false character of things, a reinterpretation of it into beings.

−

"Truth" is therefore not something there, that might be found or discovered — but something that must be created and that gives a name to a process, or rather to a will to overcome that has in itself no end — introducing truth, as a processus in infinitum, an active determining — not a becoming-conscious of something that is in itself firm and determined.

+

“Truth” is therefore not something there, that might be found or discovered — but something that must be created and that gives a name to a process, or rather to a will to overcome that has in itself no end — introducing truth, as a processus in infinitum, an active determining — not a becoming-conscious of something that is in itself firm and determined.

−

It is a word for the "will to power".

+

It is a word for the “will to power”.

|-

| align="right" | — Nietzsche, ''The Will to Power'', [Nie, S552, 298]

|}

−

<math>\cdots</math>

+

<math>\cdots\!</math>

{| align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="90%"

Line 1,876: Line 1,897:

|}

−

<math>\cdots</math>

+

<math>\cdots\!</math>

{| align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="90%"

|

−

Man projects his drive to truth, his "goal" in a certain sense, outside himself as a world that has being, as a metaphysical world, as a "thing-in-itself", as a world already in existence. His needs as creator invent the world upon which he works, anticipate it; this anticipation (this "belief" in truth) is his support.

+

Man projects his drive to truth, his “goal” in a certain sense, outside himself as a world that has being, as a metaphysical world, as a “thing-in-itself”, as a world already in existence. His needs as creator invent the world upon which he works, anticipate it; this anticipation (this “belief” in truth) is his support.

|-

| align="right" | — Nietzsche, ''The Will to Power'', [Nie, S552, 299]

|}

−

<math>\cdots</math>

+

<math>\cdots\!</math>

====1.3.7. Processus, Regressus, Progressus====

Line 1,896: Line 1,917:

|}

−

<math>\cdots</math>

+

<math>\cdots\!</math>

{| align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="90%"

|

−

Thus there seems to be in preparation a universal disvaluation: "Nothing has any meaning" — this melancholy sentence means "All meaning lies in intention, and if intention is altogether lacking, then meaning is altogether lacking, too".

+

Thus there seems to be in preparation a universal disvaluation: “Nothing has any meaning” — this melancholy sentence means “All meaning lies in intention, and if intention is altogether lacking, then meaning is altogether lacking, too”.

|-

| align="right" | — Nietzsche, ''The Will to Power'', [Nie, S666, 351]

|}

−

<math>\cdots</math>

+

<math>\cdots\!</math>

{| align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="90%"

|

−

In accordance with this valuation, one was constrained to transfer the value of life to a "life after death", or to the progressive development of ideas or of mankind or of the people or beyond mankind; but with that one had arrived at a progressus in infinitum of purposes: one was at last constrained to make a place for oneself in the "world process" (perhaps with the dysdaemonistic perspective that it was a process into nothingness).

+

In accordance with this valuation, one was constrained to transfer the value of life to a “life after death”, or to the progressive development of ideas or of mankind or of the people or beyond mankind; but with that one had arrived at a progressus in infinitum of purposes: one was at last constrained to make a place for oneself in the “world process” (perhaps with the dysdaemonistic perspective that it was a process into nothingness).

|-

| align="right" | — Nietzsche, ''The Will to Power'', [Nie, S666, 351]

|}

−

<math>\cdots</math>

+

<math>\cdots\!</math>

====1.3.8. Rondeau : Tempo di Menuetto====

Line 1,920: Line 1,941:

{| align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="90%"

|

−

And do you know what "the world" is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income; enclosed by "nothingness" as by a boundary; not something blurry or wasted, not something endlessly extended, but set in a definite space as a definite force, and not a space that might be "empty" here or there, but rather as force throughout, as a play of forces and waves of forces, at the same time one and many, increasing here and at the same time decreasing there; a sea of forces flowing and rushing together, eternally changing, eternally flooding back, with tremendous years of recurrence, with an ebb and a flood of its forms; out of the simplest forms striving toward the most complex, out of the stillest, most rigid, coldest forms toward the hottest, most turbulent, most self-contradictory, and then again returning home to the simple out of this abundance, out of the play of contradictions back to the joy of concord, still affirming itself in this uniformity of its courses and its years, blessing itself as that which must return eternally, as a becoming that knows no satiety, no disgust, no weariness: this, my Dionysian world of the eternally self-creating, the eternally self-destroying, this mystery world of the twofold voluptuous delight, my "beyond good and evil", without goal, unless the joy of the circle is itself a goal; without will, unless a ring feels good will toward itself — do you want a name for this world? A solution for all its riddles? A light for you, too, you best-concealed, strongest, most intrepid, most midnightly men? — This world is the will to power — and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power — and nothing besides!

+

And do you know what “the world” is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income; enclosed by “nothingness” as by a boundary; not something blurry or wasted, not something endlessly extended, but set in a definite space as a definite force, and not a space that might be “empty” here or there, but rather as force throughout, as a play of forces and waves of forces, at the same time one and many, increasing here and at the same time decreasing there; a sea of forces flowing and rushing together, eternally changing, eternally flooding back, with tremendous years of recurrence, with an ebb and a flood of its forms; out of the simplest forms striving toward the most complex, out of the stillest, most rigid, coldest forms toward the hottest, most turbulent, most self-contradictory, and then again returning home to the simple out of this abundance, out of the play of contradictions back to the joy of concord, still affirming itself in this uniformity of its courses and its years, blessing itself as that which must return eternally, as a becoming that knows no satiety, no disgust, no weariness: this, my Dionysian world of the eternally self-creating, the eternally self-destroying, this mystery world of the twofold voluptuous delight, my “beyond good and evil”, without goal, unless the joy of the circle is itself a goal; without will, unless a ring feels good will toward itself — do you want a name for this world? A solution for all its riddles? A light for you, too, you best-concealed, strongest, most intrepid, most midnightly men? — This world is the will to power — and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power — and nothing besides!

|-

| align="right" | — Nietzsche, ''The Will to Power'', [Nie, S1067, 549–550]

Line 1,948: Line 1,969:

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 3|Part 3]]

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 4|Part 4]]

+

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 5|Part 5]]

+

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 6|Part 6]]

+

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 7|Part 7]]

+

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 8|Part 8]]

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Appendices|Appendices]]

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : References|References]]

Line 1,954: Line 1,979:

</div>

----

−

~~ <sharethis />~~

[[Category:Artificial Intelligence]]

Jon Awbrey

12,080

edits

Changes

Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 1 (view source)

Revision as of 15:14, 15 April 2017

Navigation menu

Page actions

Page actions

Personal tools

Navigation

semantic

Site statistics

Tools

Search