ONT Re: Apposite Purposes Of Logical Languages Objectified (APOLLO)
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
In the presence of this Babel, beset by a motley crew of languages that go forth
and multiply their superficial appearances apparently endlessly, one may recognize
several sorts of problems. There is a generic problem that we may express like this:
Is there any best way to express a given object, either absolute in itself or relative
to a given objective, and how shall we recognize an optimal expression if it exists?
Let us call this the problem of "optimal forms", at this point using the term in
a very approximate way.
We can see the host dividing all but immediately into three camps:
A. There are the comparisons that can be made within a single language.
Let us call this the problem of "canonical forms", all very roughly.
B. There are the comparisons that can be made between various languages.
Let us call this problem of the "canon", taken in a very broad sense.
C. There is the encompassing problem of integrating the information that
may be embodied in diverse modes of representation, points of view,
statements of opinion, styles of procedure, and so on, whether
expressed in a single language or in multiple modalities.
In tackling these problems I have found it helpful to use
the following threefold gradation of increasingly complex
and powerful types of systems as a standard of comparison:
1. A "sign relation" simpliciter, L c OxSxI, could be just about any
3-adic relation on the arbitrary domains O, S, I, so long as it
satisfies one of the adequate definitions of a sign relation.
2. A "sign process" is a sign relation plus a significant sense of transition.
This means that there is a definite, non-trivial sense in which a sign can
be said to determine in the fullness of time one or more interpretant signs
with regard to its objects. We often find ourselves writing "<o, s, i>" as
"<o, s, s'> in such cases, where the semiotic transition s ~> s' takes place
in respect of the object o.
3. An "inquiry process" is a sign process that has value-directed transitions.
This means that there is a property, a quality, or a scalar value that can
be associated with a sign in relation to its objects, and that the transit
from a sign to an interpretant in regard to an object occurs in such a way
that the value is increased in the process. For example, semiotic actions
like inquiry and computation are directed in such a way as to increase the
qualities of alacrity, brevity, or clarity of the signs on which they work.
Next time I will focus on the matter of canonical forms within a single language.
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤