Talk:Triangle of reference

What has happened??

I referenced the page "Semiotic Triangle", because it was a useful and informative page. Now I am redirected to this page which is at best a stub and at worst - well devoid of anything useful apart from some scattered references. Please please please reinstate the original page??? This re-direct is vandalism in my view. LookingGlass (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well at least I got the original diagram back! Thanks "mystery writer"! LookingGlass (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I support this view: Semiotic Triangle gets more Google hits than Triangle of reference.--EvenT (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

i have voiced the same concerns - the original article was pulled from wiki for undisclosed reasons by some 'special powers'. please put the original semiotic triangle page back again - or at least explain why it should not be in wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.218.47.16 (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Years later: why is the origianl page not put back? it was definitively more informativ as the current stub. If there were reasons to pull it, then it should be explained, otherwise it is vandalism by 'special (wiki) powers'. Why are some wiki users more equal than others and need not explain their actions?Andrewufrank (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Similarities

speakers (psychology)
theory of meaning		theory of knowledge
language (meaning)	theory of truth	world (metaphysics)

This roughly shows Fig. 1, on page 3 of Spreading the Word: Groundings in the Philosophy of Language, authored by Simon Blackburn (1984), where no reference is made to the seminal triangle of reference and Ogden & Richards (1923) The Meaning of Meaning. --KYPark (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The figure has been replaced. --KYPark (talk) 08:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sensual is causal

Triangle	lefthand side	righthand side	bottom side
Old terms	word-thought	thought-thing	word-thing
New terms	sign-sense	sense-scene	sign-scene
Relations	causal	less causal	least causal

Note that the sign-scene relation is least sensual, hence, least causal or explicit. User:KYPark --125.128.159.55 (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Implications

AIM
Alternate Information Model
QUICK
Quadrant Unit Information Cycle Knockdown

intention response reaction feedback inference	speaker author consigner informer encoder	attention stimulus action feedforward reference
sign symbol encoding project scenario	⊕	thing referent decoding object scene
attention stimulus action feedforward reference	decoder informed consignee reader hearer	intention response reaction feedback inference
World 3	World 2	World 1

SOUP
Subjective encoder-decoder axis
Objective encoding-decoded axis
Unified Perspective

modified --KYPark(talk) 01:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

modified --KYPark (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

In Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity (1998) [1] Etienne Wenger adopts the metaphors "reification" and "participation" for the upper and lower (encoder and decoder) hemicycles of AIM, respectively. --KYPark (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The lefthand and righthand hemicycles roughly relate to symbology or philosophy of language and epistemology or philosophy of mind, respectively. Nevertheless, such hemicycles and quadrant cycles have been too long and too intricately intertwined to be isolated from each other, hence almost irreducible. This irreducibility, esp. of the human factor along the subjective axis, is the key point of the triangle of reference (1923), of the Delta Factor in The Message in the Bottle (1975) by Walker Percy, of Person and Object (1976) by Roderick Chisholm in deliberate contrast with W.V. Quine's Word and Object (1960) along the objective axis only, regardless of the human factor on the subjective axis! --KYPark (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The more analytic philosophy, logical positivism, behaviorism, computationalism (a.k.a. cognitivism in irony), and the like, doing without the cognitive (knowing and coding) subject, the less cognitive revolution in effect, allegedly since the late 1950s but actually since the late 1970s, two decades later, if any. In 1990, Jerome Bruner affirmed the "contextual revolution" instead, which is so holistic by definition that Chomsky's innatism appears far worse than Skinner's behaviorism that certainly has more to do with Carol Chomsky's "repeated reading" (1978), as mentioned by Alan E. Farstrup and S. Jay Samuels (2002) What research has to say about reading instruction (p. 177) [2] as follows:

"At Harvard University, Carol Chomsky, the other developer of repeated reading, had friends who reported that they were having trouble teaching reading to a few students, and they asked for her help. Chomsky (1978) devised a method in which the text was recorded on a tape and the student listened to the tape recording while reading the words in the text. The tape-assisted reading was repeated until the student could read the passage without help from the tape at a rate that was the same as the tape." --KYPark (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Information in flux, from spacetime to spacetime, should be encoded and decoded one way or another, from medium to medium. Such is information by definition, marked by flow and transform.

The great, e.g., digital library system is greater than the sum of its petrified parts or books. To defend old libraries, however, a ALA president-elect was to define information as a snippet isolated from the context, or, the petrified book. --KYPark (talk) 08:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)