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.
SR: 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.
JA: as usual we are using words in ways that seem to be askew.
i am tripping up on your use of "signing" and "intention".
JA: 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.
SR: I am using "intention" in the very same way.
JA: 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.
SR: I doubt that the first "s" above is the same as the second "s" above in most cases.
There are many ways to express it. The point is to develop an algroithm which takes
in only the "s" in <o, s, i> and satisfies the additional intention (however it is
represented) against some background environment.
not sure, getting confused. still do not know what you mean by "signing".
you are the one who said "signs that overtly carry another intention", and
you say that you use the word "intention" the same way, so i still interpret
you to mean that the same signs act as signs of different intentional objects.
it may also be that we need to keep better tabs on a type/token dimension here.
SR: The algorithm must operate only on "s" and the background environment
because the "o" and "i" of the original signing are not usually present
at the time and place of the solution.
okay, i kinda get the sound of this, maybe because i already said it once or twice.
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
SR: Excellant example, thank you. As you can easily
see this extra intention is in no way part of
the sign relation that we use today.
i do not see that. people, even people who claim that they know better,
are always projecting their own maps on otherwise ontologically neutral
territories. do you wonder why they keep doing that? well, one reason
might just be that projecting a map on a territory is one way of taking
and occupying that eminent domain. let's say that george vancouver had
the objective of honoring his friend peter rainier and at the same time
staking a european name on a piece of the local landscape. we continue
to fulfill both of these intentions, willy nilly, every time we use the
pelting officer's name "rainier" for the mountain of mountains, takhoma.
| Tak-ho/ma or Ta-ho/ma among the Yakimas, Kliekitats, Puyallups,
| Nisquallys, and allied tribes of Indians, is the generic term
| for mountain, used precisely as we use the word "mount",
| as Takhoma Wynatchie, or Mount Wynatchie. But they all
| designate Rainier simply as Takhoma, or The Mountain,
| just as the mountain men used to call it the "Old He".
|
| http://dave.pluckerbooks.com:81/works/stevensh/takhoma/article.html
jon awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤