[Inquiry] Re: Sign Relations -- Commentary

[Jon Awbrey]

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

SR.  Commentary Note 12

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

In cases of sign relations like the ones we are considering,
the denotative component and the connotative component exist
in a coherent relationship to one another.  If we examine the
situation with the sign relations L(A) and L(B) we can see that
the denotation relations L(A)_SO and L(B)_SO map the equivalence
classes of the connotation relations L(A)_SI and L(B)_SI onto the
objects of !O! in such a way that all of the signs in a distinct
equivalence class are mapped onto the same distinct object of !O!.
For the interpreter A, the class of signs {"A", "i"} maps to the
object A and the class of signs {"B", "u"} maps to the object B.
For the interpreter B, the class of signs {"A", "u"} maps to the
object A and the class of signs {"B", "i"} maps to the object B.

Now this is very pretty, and some people get so enamored of it that
they would even say you can now do away with the objects themselves,
having "explained them away" or "reconstructed" them as equivalence
classes of syntactic entities.  Some folks read Frege this way, for
instance.  But there are several good reasons for stopping short of
that extreme.  One reason is the non-uniqueness of the construction,
in other words, the partition into equivalence classes is different
for each interpreter.  This is a very general phenomenon, betraying
a certain "point of view relativity" in that way that the structure
of the objective world is represented in the structure of languages.

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o