ONT Re: Brief Lives Examined
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
BLE. Note 6
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Here are some things that come to mind as we begin to think about
the "ontological correlates" of objects, signs, and interpretants,
leading to the consideration of the usual sign relational domains
O, S, I as "ontological hierarchies" in their own rights.
Figure 1 presents a generic picture of this type of situation.
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
| |
| o o o Properties |
| ^ ^ ^ |
| \|/ |
| o Sign |
| Properties o o o : /|\ |
| ^ ^ ^ : v v v |
| \|/ : o o o Instances |
| Object o<::::::::@ |
| /|\ : o o o Properties |
| v v v : ^ ^ ^ |
| Instances o o o : \|/ |
| o Interpretant |
| /|\ |
| v v v |
| o o o Instances |
| |
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
Figure 1. Sign Relational Domains as Ontological Heirarchies
Figure 2 presents a schematic picture of how an iconic sign functions,
denoting its objects by virtue of properties that it shares with them.
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
| |
| p |
| o |
| ^ ^ |
| / \ |
| / \ |
| / \ |
| / \ |
| / \ o o Properties |
| / \ ^ ^ |
| / \|/ |
| / o u Sign (Icon) |
| Properties o o / : /|\ |
| ^ ^ / : v v v |
| \|/ : o o o Instances |
| Object x o<::::::::@ |
| /|\ : o o o Properties |
| v v v : ^ ^ ^ |
| Instances o o o : \|/ |
| o Interpretant |
| /|\ |
| v v v |
| o o o Instances |
| |
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
Figure 2. Icon Denoting Object by Virtue of Shared Property
Figure 3 gives a picture of one way that an indexical sign functions,
denoting its objects by virtue of instances that it shares with them.
I have not convinced myself one way or the other whether this befits
indices in general, but it does account for how indexical signs work
in a particular type of dynamic or systems-theoretic setting. Here,
the thing that we call an object corresonds to a trajectory through
a state space that is extended over a range of "instants" in time.
But the state of the total system has aspects or components that
project as the state of the object system O, the state of the
sign system S, and the state of the interpretent system I,
as in this setting systems have come to fill the roles of
the sign relational domains. In this type of situation,
the usual description of the indexical sign as one that
bears an actual connection with its object amounts to
the statement that there is a common instance of the
total system state that projects at the same time to
the object state and to the sign state in question.
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
| |
| o o o Properties |
| ^ ^ ^ |
| \|/ |
| o w Sign (Index) |
| Properties o o o : /|\ |
| ^ ^ ^ : / v v |
| \|/ : / o o Instances |
| Object x o<::::::::@ / |
| /|\ : / o o o Properties |
| v v \ : ^ ^ ^ |
| Instances o o \ / : \|/ |
| \ / o Interpretant |
| \ / /|\ |
| \ / v v v |
| \ / o o o Instances |
| v v |
| o |
| j |
| |
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
Figure 3. Index Denoting Object by Virtue of Shared Instance
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o