SUO: Re: Examples! Examples! Examples!
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
EEE. Note 32
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Semiotic Reflections (cont.)
As I contemplate the recent fray of logical maneuvers from
the safe and sound security of my semiotic study, a number
of recurring, though not especially direct, questions come
to mind.
For one thing, why do we have so many ways of saying the same thing, anyway?
Just by way of keeping a concrete example constantly in mind, here are some
fresh copies of the two alternative TLC axioms that we have found so far:
Table 20. TLC in Cactus Language: Axiom !a!
o-----------------------------------------------------------------------o
| |
| (( Object ),( Process ),( Schema ),( Script ), |
| ( Juncture ),( Participation ),( Description ),( History ), |
| ( Structure ),( Situation ),( Reason ),( Purpose )) |
| |
| ( Independent ,( Actuality ),( Form )) |
| ( Relative ,( Prehension ),( Proposition )) |
| ( Mediating ,( Nexus ),( Intention )) |
| |
| ( Physical ,( Actuality ),( Prehension ),( Nexus )) |
| ( Abstract ,( Form ),( Proposition ),( Intention )) |
| |
| ( Continuant ,( Object ),( Schema ),( Juncture ), |
| ( Description ),( Structure ),( Reason )) |
| |
| ( Occurrent ,( Process ),( Script ),( Participation ), |
| ( History ),( Situation ),( Purpose )) |
| |
| ( Actuality ,( Object ),( Process )) |
| ( Form ,( Schema ),( Script )) |
| ( Prehension ,( Juncture ),( Participation )) |
| ( Proposition ,( Description ),( History )) |
| ( Nexus ,( Structure ),( Situation )) |
| ( Intention ,( Reason ),( Purpose )) |
| |
o-----------------------------------------------------------------------o
Table 21. TLC in Cactus Language: Axiom !c!
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
| |
| (( Independent ),( Relative ),( Mediating )) |
| |
| (( Physical ),( Abstract )) |
| |
| (( Continuant ),( Occurrent )) |
| |
| (( Actuality , Independent Physical )) |
| (( Form , Independent Abstract )) |
| (( Prehension , Relative Physical )) |
| (( Proposition , Relative Abstract )) |
| (( Nexus , Mediating Physical )) |
| (( Intention , Mediating Abstract )) |
| |
| (( Object , Independent Physical Continuant )) |
| (( Process , Independent Physical Occurrent )) |
| (( Schema , Independent Abstract Continuant )) |
| (( Script , Independent Abstract Occurrent )) |
| (( Juncture , Relative Physical Continuant )) |
| (( Participation , Relative Physical Occurrent )) |
| (( Description , Relative Abstract Continuant )) |
| (( History , Relative Abstract Occurrent )) |
| (( Structure , Mediating Physical Continuant )) |
| (( Situation , Mediating Physical Occurrent )) |
| (( Reason , Mediating Abstract Continuant )) |
| (( Purpose , Mediating Abstract Occurrent )) |
| |
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
These two propositions look so different to me
that I will probably go back and check my work
a couple more times before I become moderately
well convinced that they are really equivalent.
NB. Actually, I just noticed that Figure 2.6 in my copy of 'KR' has
"Situation" and "Execution" instead of "Structure" and "Situation",
but the webpages appear to outvote it by a two-thirds majority.
To add to the multiplicity of equivalent references, we also have
the boolean expansions BE<!a!> and BE<!c!>, that, for all their
service as "canonical forms", are strictly speaking different
propositional expressions, though here their equivalence is
usually a whole lot easier to recognize, which is why they
serve as canons or norms in the first place.
Next time, I will try to address the question
of why expressive variety is necessary to the
very utility of language.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o