ONT Re: Inquiry Driven Systems
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Subsubtitle: A Logic Of Becoming A Logic Of Becoming
| 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 1.3.4.6 (The "Meta" Question)
|
| http://members.door.net/arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/awbrey/inquiry.htm
1.3.4.6 The "Meta" Question
There is one point of common contention that I finessed from play
in my handling of the transaction between A and B, even though it
lies in plain view on both of their sign relational Tables. This
is that troubling business, recalcitrant to analysis precisely on
account of the fact that its dealings race on so heedlessly ahead
of thought and grind on so routinely beneath its notice, in short,
it concerns the placement of object languages within the frame of
a meta-language.
Numerous bars to insight appear to interlock here. Each one is forged
with a good aim in mind, if a bit single-minded in its coverage of the
scene, and the whole gang is set to work innocently enough on behalf of
the unavoidable circumstances of informal discussion. But a failure to
absorb their amalgamated impact on the figurative representations and the
analytic intentions of sign relations can lead to numerous types of false
impression, both about the true characters of the Tables that are presented
here and about the proper utilities of their graphical equivalents that are
designed to be implemented as data structures in the computer. The next few
remarks are put forth in hopes of averting the ordinary brands of misreading.
The general character of this question can be expressed in the schematic terms
that I used earlier to give a rough sketch of the modeling activity as a whole.
How do the isolated "systems of interpretation" (SOI's) of the agents A and B
relate to the "interpretive framework" (IF) that I am using to present them,
and how does this IF operate, not only to objectify A and B in the guise of
the coordinated "models of interpretation" (MOI's), but simultaneously to
embrace the present and the prospective SOI's of the current narrative,
namely, the implicit systems of interpretation that embody in turn the
initial conditions and the final intentions of this whole discussion?
One way to see how this issue arises in the discussion of A and B is to
recognize that each Table of a sign relation is a complex sign in itself,
each of whose syntactic constituents is assigned a smaller part and plays
the role of a simpler sign in its makeup. To put it succinctly, there is
nothing but text to be seen on the page. Viewed in comparison to what it
represents, the Table is like a sign relation that has undergone a step
of "semantic ascent". It is as if the entire contents of the original
sign relation are transposed up a notch on the scale that registers
levels of indirectness in reference, with each item passing from
a more objective to a more symbolic mode of presentation.
Sign relations themselves, like any real objects of discussion,
are either too abstract or too concrete to reside in the medium
of communication, but can only find themselves represented there.
The tables and graphs that are used to represent sign relations
are themselves complex signs, involving a step of denotation to
reach the sign relation intended. The intricacies of this step
requires an order of interpretive performers who are able, over
and above executing all of the rudimentary steps of denotation,
to orchestrate these steps in concerted coordination with each
other. This performance in its turn requires a whole array of
techniques to match the connotations of complex signs and to
test their alternative styles of representation for semiotic
equivalence. Analogous to the ways that matrices represent
linear transformations and multiplication tables represent
group operations, a large part of the usefulness of these
complex signs comes from the fact that they are not just
conventional symbols for their objects but fully iconic
representations of their objective operative structure.
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤