SUO: Re: Conformance, Modularity, Compartmentality
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Okay, enough happy talk. Let us now look at some of the reasons
why this posh dictionary approach is almost bound to fail unless
somebody comes up with a few new ideas.
It all goes back to Aristotle, of course, but never mind that now.
Instead, let us look at the logical structure of the situation
that I described in my initial contribution to this tab:
| Once again, let me try to establish the totally naive point
| that the only reason why anybody would ever desire to conform
| to the dictations that happen to be recorded in some dictionary
| is if that dictionary conforms to something independent of itself,
| like actual usage in some community. Moreover, the best reason why
| anybody would want to conform to the usage embodied in some community
| is if that usage enables that community to conform to some reality
| independent of itself. None of this robs dictionaries of their
| power to innovate and to regulate usage, but it does require
| dictionary makers to be cognizant of what it is they can
| and cannot have power over.
I am sure that some folks would prefer that I draw them a picture:
o-----------------------------o
| Group |
| Usage o s_j | o Sign = Dictionary Data
| / | /
| / | /
| / | /
| o_j o---------@ o---------@
| \ | \
| \ | \
| \ | \
| o i_j | o Interpretant = My Usage
| L = {<o, s, i>} |
o-----------------------------o
Already at this initial level of analysis we are deep into the middle of what
some people call -- okay, what at least one person calls -- by the generic name
of a "higher order" (HO) sign relation, and more specifically, we are engaged in
the use of what I call "higher upshot" (HU) signs, which are signs that denote
sign relations, in other words, signs whose objects are entire sign relations.
Anyway, that is just a first stab at what all I can see being involved
in the very idea that I might desire to conform to the dictations that
happen to be recorded in some dictionary, all for the sake of bringing
my usage into conformity with that of some community of interpretation.
Next time I will try to tackle the next level of analysis.
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤