ONT Re: Inquiry Driven Systems
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Subtitle: A Logic Of Becoming
I am hoping that my reader remembers enough of the "Story of A and B",
that I used to illustrate the basic ideas of the pragmatic theory of
sign relations, that I will be able to jump right in and apply them
to a larger context of issues. Just in case, here is a quick link:
http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg00729.html
I now return to the point in my dissertation where I take stock
of the elementary material on sign relations in preparation for
the work ahead.
| Document History
|
| Subject: Inquiry Driven Systems: An Inquiry Into Inquiry
| Contact: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu>
| Version: Draft 8.69
| Created: 23 Jun 1996
| Revised: 04 Jan 2002
| Advisor: M.A. Zohdy
| Setting: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, USA
| Excerpt: Section 1.3.4 (Discussion of Formalization: Concrete Examples)
| Excerpt: Subsection 1.3.4.5 (Taking Stock)
|
| http://members.door.net/arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/awbrey/inquiry.htm
1.3.4.5 Taking Stock
So far, my discussion of the discussion between A and B, 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. By way of
telling the story of A and B, a sample of typical language use was 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 or even attempted.
It seems like a good idea to pause at this point and to 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
that I am taking as a nominal beginning, the second having to do with the
defects that this species of example exhibits within the broader genus
of sign relations that it is meant, however nascently, to exemplify.
As a general schema, I describe these respective types of limitations as
the "rhetorical defects" and the "objective defects" that any discussion
can have in addressing its intended object. My immediate concern is to
remedy the insufficiencies of analysis that affect my treatment of the
present example. The overarching task is to address the atypically
simplistic features of this example as it falls within the class
of sign relations that may be found relevant to realistic cases
of inquiry.
The next few Subsections will be concerned with the most problematic features
of the A and B dialogue, especially with the sorts of difficulties that are
clues to significant deficits in theory and technique, and that can serve
to point out directions for future improvements.
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤