GENERAL GNOSEOLOGY: a Peircian Triad

1
GENERAL GNOSEOLOGYa Peircian Triad

• Contributed by AULM sa (Geneva)
• Dr. Paul GEROME
• 113322.1543_at_CompuServe.com
• For the Workshop on
• Philosophy of Formal Languages
• ITU-T- Study Group 10
• Geneva - 15 September 2001

2
GENERAL GNOSEOLOGY is to GNOSEOLOGIESwhat
GENERAL LINGUISTICS is to LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS
Tactim

• A world anthropological survey discloses a
  variety of representations of knowledge (ancient
  Greek gnosis). Each system of classification of
  socially shareable Indigenous Knowledge Elements
  (IKEs) is to be accessed by Global Meaningful
  Information Managers and made comprehensible for
  users self-referring to a very distinct system of
  classes.
• Inter-operability is rooted in FORMAL LANGUAGES.

3
IKEs have to be translated to be truly shared
across culture/nature gnoseological models.
Transduced Data are to be presented within users
KNOWN CODES.

• GENERAL GNOSEOLOGY is the required Tool-Box to
  help in processing MEANINGFUL IKEs along Open
  Networks to MultiModal Terminals and differently
  literate MultiCultural Users
• Perception, Cognition and Behaviour modes form a
  classic triad, but the Basic Triad of the
  American Philosopher Charles Sanders PEIRCE
  (1839-1914) is offering optimal focus precision.

4
THE BASIC TRIADIC SYSTEM

•  In the face of a potentially overwhelming
  complexity of transactions between entities at
  different levels we must seek to discover what
  might be the basic minimal set of relationships
  that would satisfactorily frame most (or the most
  important) relationships.
• A reading of some of the literature on systems
  reveals for us what that structure is. The
  smallest cluster of levels required to represent
  fundamental interactive relationships is A TRIAD
  OF CONTIGUOUS LEVELS, so that we can
  simultaneously examine some process (or the
  events it produces), the context of these events,
  and their causes. Quoting Bateson (1979), we
  would look for the  ' relations between two
  levels of structure mediated by an intervening
  description of process ".
• Pr. Stanley N. SALTHE, Evolving Hierarchical
  Systems, Columbia University Press, N.Y.,1985

5
The Focal Level is produced by interactionof its
two framing levels.The level of interest (the
system),the level without (the environment),the
level within (the components).
Patten(1975)

•  THREE ADJACENT LEVELS SHOULD PROVIDE FOR A
  MINIMAL DESCRIPTION OF ANY COMPLEX DIACHRONIC
  SYSTEM.
• Any formulation short of this will be inadequate
  to those pursuing complex phenomena.  S.N.
  Salthe (1985)

6
ISO31 ISO1000 give norm value to orders of
magnitudePREFIXES are what they mean.

• Systems of interpretants would be systems of
  downstream consequences of semiosis, with one
  interpretant following another, perhaps branching
  as well. Semiosis itself could be viewed as a
  system of interpretants. Systems of interpretance
  (SI) would be systems of semiosic systems.
• Semiosis sign process.
• Interpretant meaning or sense.

7
SYSTEMS Of INTERPRETANCE HsiSCALAR SYSTEMS Hsc
SPECIFICATION Hsp Hierarchies

• Building consensus on ISO31 ISO1000 as baseline
  documents for coherence in current
  standardisation processes and procedures
• is the subtext of this presentation.
• System Science, Semiotic Studies and Rhetorics
  as well as World Economic Anthropology are the
  philosophical roots of AULM s contribution.
• THANKS TO ALL !

8
A semiosis Z is a process involving a channel Ch
with an interpretandum S,which is related to an
interpretatum G by being perceived and
represented asa signifier (Rs) in the organism
(O) of its interpreter the signifier (Rs) then
being mediated by an interpretant (I) to connect
with the signified (Rg),which represents the
interpretatum G within the organism (O).

• Via the interpretant (I), this process of
  symbolising and referring triggers dispositions
  for instrumental behaviour (Rbg) and/or signaling
  behaviour (Rsg) these are both related to the
  interpretatum G and terminate, via appropriate
  effectors, in overt instrumental behaviour BG or
  signaling behaviour SG, the latter supplying
  interpretanda for a further process of
  interpretation. Each semiosis Z is surrounded by
  other semioses and takes place in a context C
  external to (O) as well as a context (c)internal
  to (O).
• This complex definition may be illustrated
  graphically by
• a semiotic matrix which displays the various
  partial processes.
• MARTIN KRAMPEN, SEMIOTICS, Walter de Gruyter,
  Berlin,1997.

9
Z semiosis
C External context
C        
(c) Internal context
sign
means G
symbolizes G
Ch   Sobj G signaling behaviour       Bobj
G instrumental behaviour
Ch Channel   S interpretandum signal standing
for G (imputed relation)   Obj G interpretatum (ob
ject)

(Rs) signifier
(Rsg) signaling disposition
(I) Interpretant
(Rg) signified
(Rbg) behaviour disposition
object, referent designatum denotatum significatum

refers to G
(O) organism of the interpreter
perception cognition behaviour
Martin Krampen, 1997