[Inquiry] Re: Prospects for Inquiry Driven Systems

[Jon Awbrey]

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

PRO.  Note 35

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

1.2.2.3.  Pragmatic Theory of Signs (cont.)

The pragmatic definition of a sign relation takes as its subject a particular
type of three-place relation, the sign relation proper, envisioned to consist
of a set of three-tuples.  The pattern of the data in this set of three-tuples,
the "extension" of the sign relation, will for present purposes be arranged in
in the form:  <object, sign, interpretant>.  By way of a schematic notation for
various sign relations, the letters "o", "s", "i" may serve as typical variables
ranging over the relational domains of objects, signs, interpretants, respectively.

There are a couple of different ways that are customarily used
in trying to understand the abstract sign relation, insofar as
its structure bears on more concrete systems of interpretation.
I discuss these variant perspectives under the headings of the
"Interpreter View" and the "Interpretant View".  But first, it
is useful to consider the formal relationship that provides us
with a bridge between these two views of the semiotic current.

In the Interpreter View of a sign relation, the specification of two elements,
the "sign" in question together with the designated "interpreter" of that sign,
is equivalent information to knowing yet another sign, namely, the given sign's
so-called "interpretant" or "interpreting" sign.  In other words, knowing a sign
and the nature of its interpreter amounts to knowing the effect that is produced
in that interpretive agent or on that interpreting system.  The resultant effect
is known as the "interpretant sign", or the "interpretant" for short.  Thus, one
can take the data of the sign and the resulting interpretant sign as basic to an
alternative basis for the sign relation, founding thereby the Interpretant View.

The Interpreter View.

One way to approach a sign relation is to take the agency of a
particular "interpreter" into account as an explicit parameter
of the sign relation in question.  As it will be used here, the
concept of an "interpreter" or an "interpretive agent" includes
everything about the context of each sign's interpretation that
affects the determination of the signs's interpretation in the
given setting.

Reference to an object or to an objective, considered independently of
whether the reference is successful or not, involves an orientation of
the interpreting system toward that object or objective.  Consequently,
reference to an object or an objective is mediated by the affects "in"
and the effects "on" the interpreter.  By way of a schematic variable,
a lower case "j" can be used to mark the role of a given interpreter.

In the Interpreter View of a sign relation, then, the fundamental
pattern of data that determines the relation can be given in either
one of the optional forms <o, s, j> or <s, o, j>, as one chooses.

The Interpretant View.

Another way to approach a sign relation is to treat the interpreter as
a mere figure of speech, to be specific, the type of "personification"
that logicians call a "hypostatic abstraction".  This is tantamount to
imagining a hypothetical subject whose characters are abstracted from,
but whose substance is pretended to support, the actual processes of
sign transformation, as they are known empirically.  In other words,
the interpreter is regarded as a convenient construct that helps to
personify the action but adds nothing informative to what is more
simply observed as a process involving the succession of signs.

An "interpretant sign" is just any sign that succeeds another in a continuing
sequence of signs, each of which signs is said to "interpret" its predecessor.
What keeps this view of interpretation from falling into sheer nominalism is
the relation with objects that is maintained throughout the whole process of
transformation, along with the fact that the signs that are known as a part
of the process are typically but a sample of the signs that may potentially
take part in the real process of "semiosis".  By way of a schematic device,
a lower case "i" can be used to mark the role of a particular interpretant.

In the Interpretant View of a sign relation, then, the fundamental
pattern of data that determines the relation can be given in either
one of the optional forms <o, s, i> or <s, o, i>, as one chooses.

Total Views and Partial Views.

Viewed as a totality, a genuinely complete sign relation would have to
consist of all those conceivable moments -- past, present, prospective,
or in whatever variety of parallel universes one may care to admit --
when something means something to somebody, in the form <s, o, j>, or
when something means something about something, in the form <s, i, o>.
But this ultimate sign relation is not often explicitly needed, and it
could easily turn out to be logically and set-theoretically ill-defined.
As in physics, it is important for theoretical completeness to regard the
whole universe in principle as a single physical system, but more common
in practice to work with "isolated" subsystems.  Likewise in the theory
of signs, only particular and well-bounded subsystems of the ultimate
sign relation are likely to be the subjects of sensible discussion.

Jon Awbrey

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