ONT Re: Inquiry Driven Systems
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
JA = Jon Awbrey
SR = Seth Russell
JA: if there is such a thing as an object in the world that is not related
and cannot be related, however remotely, to some conceivable objective
of ours, then most likely we will be unaware of it, and will remain so.
SR: As usual you missed the point. Obviously all signings have the
trivial intention of establishing a sign ... and I said that above:
"except of course to establish the sign relation itself". What I am
interested in here is those signs that overtly carry another intention ...
and what can we say of those signs and how they satisfy their intentions.
In other words I am interested in those signs where these is an additional
intention in the situation exclusive of that associated with the content
expressed by <o, s, i>, so we have a quad <o, s, i, I> where "I" represents
the additional intention.
as usual we are using words in ways that seem to be askew.
i am tripping up on your use of "signing" and "intention".
here is how i think of "intention", just off the cuff.
i tend to think of it in a context of problem-solving,
where an intention can often be expressed in the form
of an infinitive phrase, one starting with a "to ...".
so it is pretty much synonymous with an aim or a goal.
an intention is only a problem when it's an end point
where one is not, just yet, so there's a differential
tension to it, at least, if it marks some non-trivial
intention.
so if you talk of "signs that overtly carry another intention"
i tend to think of "signs that overtly convey another object",
and that would probably lead me to pursue the analysis in the
following way, by adding another 3-ple into the sign relation,
like so: L = {<o, s, i>, <o', s, i'>, ...} and so on, rather
than moving up to 4-ples.
JA: well, I still take "intentional sign" to be a near tautology.
the objects of a sign relation are always intentional objects,
so signs and interpretants are always related to this intention.
SR: What is the intention of the sign "Rainier"
exclusive of its use to refer to that mountain?
apparently, to honor a friend:
| The first recorded view of Mount Rainier was made by
| Captain George Vancouver, a British explorer, while
| mapping Puget Sound in 1792. He named it after his
| friend Peter Rainier. The Indians called it Takhoma
| and had many legends about it.
|
| http://www.mount.rainier.national-park.com/info.htm
JA: and I already view a program as a sign with things to do, that is,
a sign that denotes, more or less well, a computable function as its
intended object. so I will think about what remains of the question.
SR: Yes please do.
working ...
jon awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤