SUO: Re: Sign Relations & Communication
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
JA = Jon Awbrey
SR = Seth Russell
I continue from where I broke off last time.
JA cartouched:
o-----------------------------o
| Sign Relation L(2) |
o---------o---------o---------o
| Object | Sign | Interp |
o---------o---------o---------o
| Rover | "Dog" | [Dog] |
| Specs | "Dog" | [Dog] |
| Trixy | "Dog" | [Dog] |
o---------o---------o---------o
SR: Ok. I would like to follow along with my notation ... hence:
SR: http://robustai.net/mentography/awbreySignRelation.gif
JA: From my peirce-spective this looks like a genuine improvement!
In particular, the appearance of degree-3 nodes in your graph,
to wit, the nodes labeled "L1", "L2", "L3", is a good sign to me.
SR: However I note that I end up seeing a category error in the diagram.
The arrows that I must draw in the graph based solely from your table,
above, seem wrong. The arrows labeled object from the sign relationship
instances should all be drawn with their sharp end on the box labeled
"Objects that are dogs" rather than to the individual dogs as objects.
Otherwise it seems to me that you are mixing signs for plurals with
signs for individuals.
JA: No, that's okay, but it does raise an issue
that maybe we have come far enough to tackle.
JA: The sign relation L(2) is what what we might call an "object sign relation",
in the sense that some people use when they talk about an "object language".
In other words, the whole sign relation L(2) is an object of our discussion,
and we have it so well pinned down at this point in the dissecting tray that
one might well call it a "formaldehyded sign relation", or more prosaically,
a fully formalized object of discussion. Of course, in order to discuss it
we are obligated to use all sorts of additional verbiage and video-montage
that neither of us would be able to completely vivisect all the rest of our
lives, even if we should be foolhardy enough or, indeed, even willing to try.
And the several total or the unseveral sum of all of that extra significating
is what I usually describe as our "meta sign relation", though I'm sure you'll
discover that usage varies in respect to this, as it does in most every regard.
JA: Now, with respect to this somewhat blurry distinction that arises
from the precipitation of an object system out of its meta-liquor,
the domains and elements of our focal sign relation can be seen
to enjoy slightly different statuses with respect to each other.
JA: Thus, it ought to be clear that we are always working on a semantic platform
that is at least one story higher than the object system we are discussing.
Really, nothing but signs can appear on the page or on the silver screen,
and so we are using the signs "Rover", "Specs", "Trixy" to mention these
three dogs of our real or imaginary acquaintances, but these signs are
not part of the object sign relation -- they are parts of the vast,
unmapped meta sign relation that we are using to talk about L(2).
So, to make a long story come to a semblance of
a nexus before it goes on to become even longer,
there are no signs for individuals that achieve
any proper membership in the sign relation L(2).
All such signs are signs that we employ in what
I would dub a "higher order" (HO) sign relation,
one in which we participate while we talk about
the internal structure of L(2).
To say it another way, the actual words that appear in the Object column
as names of objects in L(2) are not a fixed part of this sign relation's
specs in the same way that the quoted and bracketed signs that appear in
the Sign and Interpretant columns are. I could put any other equivalent
information in the Object column that serves to specify the same objects,
and the sign relation would would not be regarded as different from L(2),
but if I change any entries at all in the Sign or Interpretant columns,
then I have transformed L(2) into a distinct sign relation L(2)'.
By way of illustration, compare and contrast
the following triple of sign relation tables:
o-----------------------------------o
| Sign Relation L(2.0) |
o-----------o-----------o-----------o
| Object | Sign | Interp |
o-----------o-----------o-----------o
| Rover | "Dog" | [Dog] |
| Specs | "Dog" | [Dog] |
| Trixy | "Dog" | [Dog] |
o-----------o-----------o-----------o
o-----------------------------------o
| Sign Relation L(2.1) |
o-----------o-----------o-----------o
| Object | Sign | Interp |
o-----------o-----------o-----------o
| Rover | "Chien" | [Dog] |
| Specs | "Chien" | [Dog] |
| Trixy | "Chien" | [Dog] |
o-----------o-----------o-----------o
o-----------------------------------o
| Sign Relation L(2.2) |
o-----------o-----------o-----------o
| Object | Sign | Interp |
o-----------o-----------o-----------o
| Vagabond | "Dog" | [Dog] |
| Lunettes | "Dog" | [Dog] |
| Enjoué | "Dog" | [Dog] |
o-----------o-----------o-----------o
L(2.0) is the one we came in with.
L(2.1) might correspond to an English speaker
who has just learned the French word for "dog".
L(2.2) might represent the somewhat far-fetched
case of a (meta) discussion conducted in French
about the structure of the sign relation L(2.0).
Even though proper names are usually treated as
fixed points of any translation, it is possible
that someone might wish to know the approximate
semantic connotations that are suggested by the
particular choices of names. It could happen.
In regard to their status as sign relations,
L(2.0) and L(2.2) would count as equivalent
presentations of the very same sign relation,
while L(2.1) would be distinguished from the
other two as a non-equivalent formal structure.
Of course, there are higher level equivalences
that we might well consider. Maybe tomorrow.
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤