ONT Re: Inquiry Driven Systems
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Even in such a simple setting as the one that we have been keeping to of late,
there are already a number of interesting philosophical and technical issues
that I probably ought to mention while I have them fresh in mind, and also
a host of potential misunderstandings that I ought to try and stave off
while I still have the chance to do so.
Once again, let us consider the field of experience that stretches
between the two objects p, q and the four signs s^1, s^2, s^3, s^4.
o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
| Objective Framework | Interpretive Framework |
o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
| |
| s^1 |
| · |
| · |
| · |
| · |
| p · · · · s^2 |
| · · |
| · · |
| · · |
| · · |
| q · · · · s^3 |
| · |
| · |
| · |
| · |
| s^4 |
| |
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
If it wasn't already clear, I ought to point out that the two
sides of the field are not equal in their experiential status.
In Aristotle's way of putting it, the objects are the things
that are "nearer to nature" while the signs are the things
that are "nearer to us", and it is our human condition that
we always have to use the latter to get a grip on the former.
So, though I would not want to say that we construct the objects,
we do construct all of our approximations to them, in other words,
we construct our knowledge of these objects in the formal media
of signs, and we are forced to keep on trying to press these
impressions ever closer to their objective destinations.
This has implications for how we regard the next two pictures:
o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
| Objective Framework | Interpretive Framework |
o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
| P |
| s^1 |
| · ^ |
| · | |
| · | |
| · v |
| p · · · · s^2 |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| q · · · · s^3 |
| · ^ |
| · | |
| · | |
| · v |
| s^4 |
| |
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
Figure. Sign Relation P
o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
| Objective Framework | Interpretive Framework |
o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
| Q |
| s^1 |
| · ^ |
| · | |
| · | |
| · v |
| p · · · · s^3 |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| q · · · · s^2 |
| · ^ |
| · | |
| · | |
| · v |
| s^4 |
| |
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
Figure. Sign Relation Q
In developing these these two pictures from the filmy muddle that
initially struck our eyes, we managed to tease out some semblance
of order that was half concealed, half disclosed by that half-bit
channel crossing our stream of view at the gleam of the morning's
first beam, as we set out on our venture, and we found it in full
glory reflected in the guise of a correlation between objects and,
not particular signs, but parts in the salient partition of signs.
Now, a "naive empirical thinker" or a "nominal thinker", on first
encountering this grand old idea of objects corresponding to sets
of signs, will naturally try to eliminate the approachable object,
as yet an ideal limit for all its reality, in favor of the nearer,
less dearer signs that impress themselves on our immediate senses.
And so you will hear this sort of thinker saying that objects, or,
at least, the abstract, ideal, universal kind, are "merely names",
or the congeries thereof.
That will decidedly not be my choice. I'll choose to keep both
roles open, objects and signs, and many choice spots in between.
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤