[Inquiry] Re: Utter Indetermination

[Jon Awbrey]

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

UI.  Note 3

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

Re: UI 2.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-October/003089.html
In: UI.    http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-October/thread.html#3088

Considering an "equivocal syntactic construction" (ESC) to
be "defective in measure" (DIM) to the extent that some of
the interpretations apparent to the reader are not in fact
intended by the author, and finding that the dimness of an
expression may increase over time, in particular, when the
author numbers among the successive readers, I find that I
must amend my last paragraph to read as the next paragraph:

Bringing it back to the present application, we can give
a rough first description of what the logical graphs are
iconic of by stating the analogy, true : false :: O : |.
We could've written equally well, true : false :: | : O,
since it is only a matter of preserving the distinction,
not the direction of orientation, the latter being the
duty of the interpretation, entitative or existential.

In 3-adic semiotics we consider the ways that
a sign means something to somebody, the ways
that a sign stands for something to somebody.

That way of stating it uses "meaning" in its
"denotative" or "referential" sense, but the
whole thing can be stated equally well using
meaning in its "connotative" or "Sinn" sense.

As the subject develops, "somebody", the interpreter,
tends to get replaced by the domain or the system of
"interpretant signs", and so we express the relevant
structure as a 3-adic "sign relation", where objects
are denoted 'by' signs 'to' interpretants, or to put
it in formal terms, a relation L c O x S x I that is
subject to the constraints that define what it means
to be a sign in such a relation.

With that brief suggestion of 3-adic semiotics, let's return to
the type of sign system that we have in Peirce's logical graphs,
and consider how the question of interpretation that vacillates
between the entitative and existential options might be brought
into a marked or explicit form, rather than being relegated, as
it currently is, to an implicit, a tacit, or an unmarked choice.

After breakfast and a whole lotta coffee ...

Jon Awbrey

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