ONT Re: Signs Of Pragmata -- Discussion
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
SOP. Discussion Note 5
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
JA = Jon Awbrey
RX = Reader X
Re: SOP 2. http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg05411.html
In: SOP. http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/thrd1.html#05410
JA: 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
RX: The triple here denotes the triad of <sign, object, interpretant>
all relating to Interpreter J. What is the conceptual distinction
to be made between the Object A and the Interpreter A, or is this
what you are driving at with the special case of O and Interpreter
being the same with the use of demonstratives, indexicals, etc.?
There are depths of complexity here that I will try to avoid falling into --
somehow the phrase "Run, you fools!" comes to mind -- at any rate, let us
try to approach the abyss more gingerly than your average hobbit will do.
Interpretive agents, in so far as we formally consider them -- since we
do not concern ourselves with what they had for breakfast except insofar
as we conceive it to have a bearing on their sign relations -- are really
just personifications of these sign relations themselves. In this formal
regard, we can replace Interpreter J with a particular sign relation L(J),
and oftentimes it will be safe enough in context to use just J for L(J).
In that light, the picture above is just another syntax for saying
that <x, y, z> is an element of L(J), more briefly, <x, y, z> in J.
In our eavesdropping on the discussion between A and B, we take them
as having names for A and B as unanalyzed objects of discussion, and
nowhere near enough vocabulary yet to talk about their own discourse
in sign relational terms. It would take the development of language
about "higher order sign relations" of various sorts in order for us
to be able to talk about this intelligently and without getting lost
in near-hopeless confusion. So let's leave that quest to the sequel.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
http://www.cs.bsu.edu/homepages/mighty/history.html
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o