1. GENERAL GNOSEOLOGY: a Peircian Triad Contributed by AULM sa (Geneva) Dr. Paul GEROME 113322.1543@CompuServe.com For the Workshop on Philosophy of Formal Languages ITU-T- Study Group 10 Geneva - 15 September 2001

2. GENERAL GNOSEOLOGY is to GNOSEOLOGIES what GENERAL LINGUISTICS is to LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS 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. Tactim:

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 interaction of 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 magnitude: PREFIXES 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 Hsi SCALAR 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 as a 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) Internal context C External context C sign (Rs) signifier (Rsg) signaling disposition (Rg) signified (Rbg) behaviour disposition refers to G object, referent designatum denotatum significatum perceptioncognitionbehaviour (O) organism of the interpreter Ch Sobj G signaling behaviour Bobj G instrumental behaviour Ch Channel S interpretandum = signal standing for G (imputed relation) Ob j G interpretatum (object) (I) Interpretant symbolizes G means G Martin Krampen, 1997