[Inquiry] Re: Sign Relations -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

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

SR.  Discussion Note 5

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

JA = Jon Awbrey
KM = Kirsti Määttänen

Re: SR-COM 12.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-January/002259.html
In: SR-COM.     http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-January/thread.html#2242

KM: Some questions on what you write below -- one to check
    whether my feeling of understanding is predominantly
    correct, one to get more informed on the subject. 

JA: 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. 

JA: 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. 

KM: Who are the "some folks" who read Frege this way? (I sincerely hope you
    do not answer with fifty-one references to your admirably arranged network
    of your (net)work.  That would not help me in this.  Although I'm learning
    a lot from musing from time to time your method of arranging the threads.
    Seven plus/minus two references -- if that will be the way how you choose
    to answer -- would a digestible amount.  Not that I'm complaining, the
    dialogue has been most interesting and enlightening.  Your focus of
    interest on Peirce's writings is exactly where mine is not.)

I had in mind Dummett's account of Tugendhat's approach
to Frege's theory of reference, found on pp. 199-203 of
Michael Dummett, 'Frege:  Philosophy of Language', 2nd,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1981.  I will
copy out some relevant excerpts after dinner, but have
to run for now.

JA: 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.

KM: Here I have a feeling of understanding -- or rather:
    a feeling of mutual agreement.  But I'm not sure.
    "Partition into equivalence classes"?

Will get to this later, also.

JA: 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.

KM: "Betraying"?

Here just meaning "to show, indicate, disclose, or reveal".
Maybe the connotative connection is through "informing on"?

Jon Awbrey

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