SUO: Re: Lifecycle Integration Schema
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
LIS. Discussion Note 107
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
One of the dangers of using concrete examples of abstract ideas is the
chance of forgetting the ideas that one originally came in the door with.
In that connection, I've overheard, or e/heard, Bernard Morand observe on
many occasions that we should be wary of letting the example of the theory
drag us down to the theory of the example. So let's all watch out for that.
Whether it's sweetness and light, or Morning* and Evening*, there is a risk
that interpretive heirs will confabulate the indirectional example with the
solid subject of interest that it got pulled out of thin air to illustrate.
With that hopefully redundant caution, I return to the question
of what all this has to do with that exemplary subject that all
the (Anglophone) world terms the "Price Of Tea In China", or as
I shall call it out of respect for the brevity of life, "POTIC".
If one is content to classify "POTIC" as an abstract term, and if we
has good reason to believe that it might be given a meaning relative
to a suitable "context of discursive enterprise" (CODE), then we may
proceed without further ado to say that it denotes what is generally
known as an "abstract object".
Now, I know what it is you saw -- because it is in my mind, too --
that the term "abstract object", all by itself, affords us with
yet another example of an abstract term, but let's put that one
on yet another back burner with all the other kettles of fish.
Gollum, of course, dines out.
We have at this point an example of an "elementary sign relation" (ESR),
that is, an ordered triple <o, s, i> in L c O x S x I, for appropriate
choices of object domain O, sign domain S, and interpretant domain I.
In particular, we have the following triple:
1. <Price Of Tea In China, "Price Of Tea In China", "Price Of Tea In China">.
But more than that, we may quickly include the following triples:
2. <Price Of Tea In China, "Price Of Tea In China", "POTIC">.
3. <Price Of Tea In China, "POTIC", "Price Of Tea In China">.
4. <Price Of Tea In China, "POTIC", "POTIC">.
Table 1 brings together in a convenient form of display
this starter set of "elementary sign relations" (ESR's).
Table 1. Sample of a Sign Relation
o-------------------------o-------------------------o-------------------------o
| Object | Sign | Interpretant |
o-------------------------o-------------------------o-------------------------o
| Price Of Tea In China | "Price Of Tea In China" | "Price Of Tea In China" |
| Price Of Tea In China | "Price Of Tea In China" | "POTIC" |
| Price Of Tea In China | "POTIC" | "Price Of Tea In China" |
| Price Of Tea In China | "POTIC" | "POTIC" |
o-------------------------o-------------------------o-------------------------o
Of course, Table 1 presents just one very initial selection from
the relevant sign relation L c O x S x I that would normally and
probably arise from continuing discussion of the objects and the
signs in question.
To avert a conceivable misapprehension of what is and what's not being
exhibited here, since I am sure that the reader will have noticed that
the so-called "Object" column has no such objects in it, but only more
words, it is important to understand the conventions that apply to all
such displays. The words that file in the Object column are not to be
treated formally when they appear in that setting, even if they happen
to be some of the same words that appear more formally in quotation in
the Sign and Interpretant columns. Using the language that some folks
use aptly, but most ineptly, to describe this distinction, the bits in
the Object column appear in the office, as they do on "Casual Fridays",
of informal metalanguage, while the terms that appear in the other two
columns appear in the armored suits of formal, object language symbols.
Enough Tea -- Time For Lunch ...
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o