ONT Re: Effective Logical Formalism -- Literature Notes

[Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@att.net>]

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

ELF.  Literature Note 8

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

GH = Guha & Hayes
GR = Gary Richmond
JA = Jon Awbrey
MA = Murray Altheim

MA: . . . do we need to tie down any intermediate layers between
    objects and [...] and signs?  Or are we simply talking about
    the whole category of interpretation/representation relations? 

GR: I too am a bit confused about the about distinction
    Jon seems to be making, since the triadic relationship
    sign/object/interpretant would appear to already include
    the object.

Hi Gary,

How I got into this was that Murray said he was interested in LBase,
I remembered that there was something I liked at the beginning of it,
and that other than that it seemed like a fairly standard presentation
of "classical model theory", the model theory of first order logic, and
I said that I would read through it with him, as long as he participated
actively enough to keep me from falling asleep and to let me be guided by
what in particular he wanted to do with it.  I started with the words and
sentences that were there in the text, and I will return to that as soon
as we get some common ground, and I merely introduced a bit of my own
interpretive apparatus, in part by way of preparing for the sort of
comparative study that I believe Murray has in mind.  So naturally
there will be some compromise formations of sundry nomenclatures.

GR: But perhaps I should revisit the paper Jon linked
    us to, which he wrote with his wife, Susan.

JA:| Jon Awbrey and Susan Awbrey,
   |"Interpretation as Action:  The Risk of Inquiry",
   | http://www.chss.montclair.edu/inquiry/fall95/awbrey.html

GR: When I was having trouble getting through Jon's dissertation
    in progress, a few years ago, I printed out a copy and read
    it to advantage.

Thanks, Gary.  My immediate purpose in citing that paper was
to provide some deep background for the following statement:

GH: | A particular world is called an interpretation,
    | so that model theory might be better called
    | 'interpretation theory'.

The question that suggests itself -- sure, let's all blame the question! --
is to compare and contrast the "interpretation theory" of Guha and Hayes
with the "interpretation theory" of their venerable precursor, Aristotle.

In the process of beginning to do that, one immediately observes
a host of different interpretations for the word "interpretation".

I'd planned at this point to provide some further
links to the contemporary study of "hermeneutics":

Hermeneutics Resources:

1.  Shaun Gallagher's "Applied Hermeneutics" web site:

    http://www2.canisius.edu/~gallaghr/ah.html    -- with frames
    http://www2.canisius.edu/~gallaghr/ahnf.html  -- sans frames

    Additional info:

    http://www2.canisius.edu/~gallaghr/her.html

2.  Richard Palmer's "mostly hermeneutics" home page:

    http://www.mac.edu/faculty/richardpalmer/

    Especially these two papers:

    http://www.mac.edu/faculty/richardpalmer/relevance.html
    http://www.mac.edu/faculty/richardpalmer/liminality.html

GR: I am, however, currently reading John Deely's extended essay,
    "What Distinguishes Human Understanding?", and am immersed in
    such questions as:  Does semiotics "have a footing on both sides
    of the divide between reveries of thought and the brute secondness
    of nature in its material and physical being?" (Deely, op. cit, 18)
    and am presently tending to see a triadic integrity of sign action
    in our understanding of things.

GR: I've just read Jon's response to you, but will have to consider it
    later.  Well, this conversation is semiosis -- sign action -- itself.
    I keep hoping the collaborative intelligence is evolutionary in the
    Engelbartian sense.  :-)

Hope springs eternal ...

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o