ONT Re: Signs Of Pragmata
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
SOP. Note 2
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
What is the most primitive form in which this POV-relativity arises?
One guess would be with the understanding of so-called demonstratives,
indexicals, pronouns, words like that. What is the "ontology" of words
like "I", "you", "they", "this", "that"? Silly way to ask the question.
There is no way to understand these words by way of a simple fixed map
from signs to objects.
Consider the following two sign relations, reflecting, let us say,
the ways that Ann and Bob use the words "Ann", "Bob", "I", "you".
Table 1. Sign Relation of Interpreter A
o---------------o---------------o---------------o
| Object | Sign | Interpretant |
o---------------o---------------o---------------o
| A | "A" | "A" |
| A | "A" | "i" |
| A | "i" | "A" |
| A | "i" | "i" |
o---------------o---------------o---------------o
| B | "B" | "B" |
| B | "B" | "u" |
| B | "u" | "B" |
| B | "u" | "u" |
o---------------o---------------o---------------o
Table 2. Sign Relation of Interpreter B
o---------------o---------------o---------------o
| Object | Sign | Interpretant |
o---------------o---------------o---------------o
| A | "A" | "A" |
| A | "A" | "u" |
| A | "u" | "A" |
| A | "u" | "u" |
o---------------o---------------o---------------o
| B | "B" | "B" |
| B | "B" | "i" |
| B | "i" | "B" |
| B | "i" | "i" |
o---------------o---------------o---------------o
Normally, the structure of the Object domain
is reconstructed on the semiotic plane S x I,
between the Sign and Interpretant columns of
a sign relational database, by partitioning
signs into equivalence classes of some sort.
But here the partition is different for each interpreter:
Interpreter A has the signs in {"i", "A"} denoting A,
and the signs in {"u", "B"} denoting B.
Interpreter B has the signs in {"u", "A"} denoting A,
and the signs in {"i", "B"} denoting B.
The kicker is this: When you really begin to look at how people actually
use language, you will find that their use of words is far more personalized,
that is, far more indexed to their peculiar identities, and thus far more like
demonstratives and indexicals and pronouns, than most people would like to think
about, and so it is only with a whole lot of luck and work that we ever begin to
extract common senses out of the massa confusa of all this initial idiosyncracy.
Another style of graphical picture can be given by letting the fact that
interpreter J employs a triple of the form <x, y, z> be depicted like so:
y
/
x o--J
\
z
Then the 16 triples of the above two Tables can
be arranged around their shared objects like so:
"i" "i"
o o o o
| \ / |
"A" o--A A A--o "A"
"A" o \ | / o "A"
\ o o o /
A--o A o--B
/ o o o \
"A" o / | \ o "A"
"A" o--B B B--o "A"
| / \ |
o o o o
"u" "u"
"i" "i"
o o o o
| \ / |
"B" o--B B B--o "B"
"B" o \ | / o "B"
\ o o o /
B--o B o--A
/ o o o \
"B" o / | \ o "B"
"B" o--A A A--o "B"
| / \ |
o o o o
"u" "u"
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
http://www.cs.bsu.edu/homepages/mighty/history.html
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o