SUO: Re: Membrance Of Things Parsed
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Robert,
Another part of the puzzle of which you have lately
reminded me can be approached in the following wise:
If we find ourselves from time to time taking up this business
of assigning to Subjects various Predicates that appear to fit,
a concern that may be chartered under the aegis and the auspex
of the nomen "Applied Logic" (AL), if you please, or disbursed
and pursued just a bit more concretely under the titlements of
the "Pragmatic Theory Of Signs" (PTOS), by talking of relating
Objects to Signs, instead, then we will find ourselves brought
to the counter of contemplating a patent panoply and a diverse
panorama of triadic relations, whose generic brands we may try
to catalogue in one or two fashions, as follows. We enumerate
the components of the triadic transaction in either one of two
modes, that I customarily codify as <o, s, i> versus <o, s, j>.
The "components" (the "role players" or the "slot fillers") of
the two types of triadic relations can be described as follows:
1. "o" is a variable name for the "object",
an element of the "object domain" O.
2. "s" is a variable name for the "sign",
an element of the "sign domain" S.
3. "i" is a variable name for the "interpretant sign",
an element of the "interpretant domain" I.
4. "j" is a variable name for the "interpretive agent",
an element of the "agent domain" J.
It is tacitly understood in all of this business that an "agent"
may in fact be more like a "community of interpretation" (COI),
a "stand in" for any one of the following sorts of constructs:
a test participant, a witness, an average, ideal, mean, modal,
or typical representative of the community or the system that
matters, at times, none other than our old friend T.C. Mits.
Sorry, but I have to break away now, and
just when the plot was beginning to thicken.
I will try to get back to my story after dinner.
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤