[Inquiry] Re: Relations In General

[Jon Awbrey]

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

RIG.  Note 2

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

3.4.31.1.  Object-Theoretic and Sign-Theoretic Options

Generally speaking, one is free to interpret references
to "generalized objects" in either one of two fashions:

1.  As distinct indications of partially formed versions of objects.
2.  As partially informed descriptions of distinct types of objects.

I will describe these choices as the "object-theoretic"
and the "sign-theoretic" interpretations, respectively.

The object-theoretic way of reading partial signs assumes that
general references and vague references nevertheless have their
objective denotations, but purely, simply, and quite literally
denoting "general objects" and "vague objects", respectively.

The sign-theoretic way of reading partial signs ascribes the
partialities of information to the characters of the signs,
the expressions, and the texts that are doing the denoting.

In most of the cases that arise in casual discussion the choice
between these conventions is purely stylistic.  However, in many
of the more intricate situations that arise in formal discussion,
the object-theoretic choice frequently fails utterly, and whenever
the utmost care is required it will usually be a due attention to
the partialities of signs that saves the day, and so this is the
direction of generalization that I ultimately tend to adopt in
all of the most critical applications.

Jon Awbrey

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