ONT Re: Inquiry Driven Systems
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
i think that i need to explain a number of the basic features and
the overarching rationale of this objective-interpretive framework
business before moving on. most of this material is written out in
some convoluted formalistic manner somewhere in my dissertation, but
i will try to put a fresher face on it for this informal presentation.
the basic idea is that any given object usually manifests a manifold of
signs, for example, 'data of the senses' (dots), affective impressions
in the media of interpretant souls, experiential concepts embodied in
observant agents, or however you want to describe them. pictured so:
o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
| Objective Framework | Interpretive Framework |
o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
| |
| s |
| · s |
| · · s |
| · · · s |
| · · · · s |
| · · · · · s |
| · · · · · · s |
| any given object = o · · · · · · s |
| · · · · · · s |
| · · · · · s |
| · · · . s |
| · · · s |
| · · s |
| · s |
| s |
| |
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
in this picture i attempted to convey an impression of something
approaching the intitial sort of situation in which we frequently
find ourselves, but in doing so i have both overshot and undershot
my mark, drawing a picture that is too complex in some respects and
too simple in other respects. let's try to correct the inaccuracies
that may have been conveyed by these false and untenable expressions.
first of all, our initial impression is typically more of something
like a 'complex object' (co) or a 'complex of objects' (coo) -- who
can say which? -- than the semblance of some simple single singular
object that i drew in my first draft of errors. then there is that
matter of all those token "s"'s that i am sure you know i was using
to convey the sense of a manifold of individually distinctive signs,
but just in case either one of us forgets this graphical convention
someday, let me make it explicit at least this once through the use
of superscripts that mark the individual differences of these signs.
o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
| Objective Framework | Interpretive Framework |
o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
| |
| s^01 |
| · s^02 |
| · · s^03 |
| · · · s^04 |
| · · · · s^05 |
| · · · · · s^06 |
| / o · · · · · s^07 |
| a complex object < o · · · · · s^08 |
| \ o · · · · · s^09 |
| · · · · · s^10 |
| · · · . s^11 |
| · · · s^12 |
| · · s^13 |
| · s^14 |
| s^15 |
| |
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
with all that fussiness out of the way, let me now revert to
a less busy picture and try to continue with the explanation.
o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
| Objective Framework | Interpretive Framework |
o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
| |
| s |
| · s |
| · · s |
| · · · s |
| · · · · s |
| · · · · · s |
| o · · · · · s |
| an object complex o · · · · · s |
| o · · · · · s |
| · · · · · s |
| · · · . s |
| · · · s |
| · · s |
| · s |
| s |
| |
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
the dotted field that is spread out between the object complex
and the sign complex is meant to suggest a relationship between
objects and signs that is reminiscent of, tantamount to, or just
vaguely verging on the likeness of a 'complete bigraph', that is,
a 'complete bipartite graph', commonly notated in the form K_m,n.
in the present setting, however, i am apt to regard the structure
in question under the nomen of a "muddle", and to see my task as
one of clearing up this muddled field between objects and signs.
let's skip to a later stage of the game and say that we have
cleared up the muddle that was there at the beginning to the
point where we have resolved the initial object complex into
a couple of component objects p and q, also, that we can now
recognize four distinct signs s^1, s^2, s^3, s^4, exhibiting
a relationship among objects and signs that is pictured here:
o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
| Objective Framework | Interpretive Framework |
o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
| |
| s^1 |
| · |
| · |
| · |
| · |
| p · · · · s^2 |
| · · |
| · · |
| · · |
| · · |
| q · · · · s^3 |
| · |
| · |
| · |
| · |
| s^4 |
| |
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
in summary:
| the object p is associated with the signs s^1, s^2, s^3.
|
| the object q is associated with the signs s^2, s^3, s^4.
it is still something of a muddle, in the sense that our
associational wires are crossed just a bit in the middle,
but there is a respect in which p owns s^1 all by itself
being the same respect in which q owns s^4 all by itself,
and that's a bit further from the state of total entropy
that we faced at the outset of play.
to be continued ...
jon awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤