[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Looking for a Tabula

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 22:32:19 -0400
Message-id: <4C6B4633.2070704@xxxxxxx>
Way back on the "Multi-Weight Semantics" thread I wrote this:    (01)

JA: There are grades of gravitas in semantics for sure,
     but more important are the fundamental differences
     in the frameworks that embed the relationships of
     objects, signs, and the process of interpretation.    (02)

One of the things I had in mind here was the fundamental difference
between dyadic frameworks and triadic frameworks for analyzing and
modeling the relationships in question.  There are two types of
dyadic approaches that one often sees:    (03)

(1)  Flat-out reductionists say that only two domains need be considered:
(1a) Foundationalists and objectivists hold that adequate theories of
      interpretive phenomena can be expressed in terms of the relation
      between objects and signs alone.
(1b) Conceptualists, coherentists, and other types of nominalists hold
      that adequate theories of interpretive phenomena can be expressed
      in terms of of the relation between signs and conceptual entities
      alone.    (04)

(2)  Stepwise reductionsists admit three or more ontological categories or
      relational domains into their theories, but hold that all relationships
      among three or more entities can be taken two at time.  (Descartes says
      this quite explicitly.)    (05)

And then there's Peirce ...    (06)

Sean Barker wrote:
 > Is there a named area of study which considers specifically the process
 > of interpreting a sign together with the shared knowledge needed by two
 > agents who communicate (using signs)?    (07)

In the pragmatic theory of signs -- as far as I can see it developing at least 
the "minimal adequate dataset" for talking about the interpretive behavior of
a specific agent is completely embodied in a specific triadic sign relation.
What an agent knows and when he knows it -- the content and the context of
background knowledge -- either have their effects embodied in that triadic
sign relation or they have no bearing on the interpretive process at all.    (08)

That transforms your question into one about two sign relations, say,
L_1 for Agent 1 and L_2 for Agent 2, and what it means for either to
"communicate" with the other.    (09)

Good question.    (010)

Have to break here ...    (011)

Jon    (012)

--     (013)

inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
knol: http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/3fkwvf69kridz/1
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey    (014)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (015)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>