Outline - draft (please add to this)

1. ι-function, specifically related to establishing a channel
1. Schimel: Opening
2. Harmon:
1. YOU.  [For now, let's start briefly with "us", our research and background, although we would probably jump in with a real protagonist later, namely, The Reader, or a stand-in for that person. Another important character to introduce here is Phatics, which will go on a journey in the paper along with the reader. We have through one path or another found out about phatics, semiotics, 20th century philosophy, and related fields.  We've taken different approaches to these topics (e.g. culture studies, computer science), but they are inherently interdisciplinary areas.  Our sources of Data should be revealed.  According to Schimel, the data provides all of the "characters" in scientific writing.  We might do something like an "A/B" story structure to deal with different journeys taken by these different characters.]
1. The Reader
2. Phatics
3. We/Us
4. Data
2. NEED. [We have (independently, re-)discovered this great, but perturbing, thing called Phatics.  It is perturbing because it seems to be poorly understood, even though many "knights" have broken their lances on it.  At the same time there are also some exciting clues that beckon to be understood better.  It is great because it seems to have huge potential explanatory power.  Indeed, phatics has an intoxicating, Holy Grail or alchemical quality to it.  As much as story structure or the idea of emergence, it seems to have the potential to say something about who we are and what we're doing here.  But in itself it is also rather "mute".  After all, phatic speech is meant to be "talking about nothing in particular."  We will show that that simplistic view is wrong.]
1. poorly understood
2. potential explanatory power
2. ς-function, appeal to the reader's sense of drama and adventure
1. Schimel: Challenge
2. Harmon:
1. GO. [The first part of the unfamiliar situation is The Literature.  Rasmus has been making a wonderful survey of this.  It's a bit like exploring the Wild Wood (from "The Wind in the Willows").  But because Rasmus (in particular) has been getting acquainted with this stuff, he can be a guide to what's going on.  A List of Keywords and List of Names would be two wonderful magical devices that could help us navigate into this area.  In this part Joe could serve as some sort of stand-in for The Reader, asking questions and learning how to navigate this new world.  But Joe is particularly curious about what's going on in the heart of this Wild Wood, and proposes that we explore some aspects of it that even Rasmus's literature survey has only touched on (e.g. Emergence, φαίνειν).  So this aspect of things will be new for both of us, though we'll be well-equiped.]
1. The Literature
2. List of Keywords
3. List of Names
4. Emergence
2. SEARCH. [We've spent some time adapting to some aspects of this new environment, and the "maps" introduced above will help.  However, The Reader will not be at that level yet, and everyone will be well-served if we can say something about The Questions that are on our mind.  Furthermore, we should take stock of the forces that are in effect in this domain.  Although it's too early to say for sure what the applications will be, I think we can start to say more here about The Problem that we would like to approach.  Bergson points out that positing really crucial problems leads directly to solutions.  I suspect that we won't have a totally clear grasp of The Problem until we get to the next step.  At this point we may only be looking at "Avatars of The Problem" or something similar.]
1. The Questions
2. The Problem
3. forces
4. Avatars of The Problem
3. κ-function, the definition of the situation or how the participants understand, interpret or frame what is going on.  Maybe divide into κ₁ κ₂ κ₃ κ₄ κ₅ to denote context, problem, solution, rationale, resolution.  (Although these are somewhat synonymous with the existing phatic functions.)
1. Schimel: Action
2. Harmon:  
1. FIND. [Again at this early stage in the research process it seems a bit premature to pontificate about what we will find, but in my opinion it has something to do with the way a "Social Field" works.  We might observe some things about how Zipf Functions (Power Laws) fit together.  Maybe we will invent (or rediscover?) some sort of Continuous Information Theory.  But at this stage, all of these should be thought of as Avatars of The Problem, and they should be taken as presumed-to-be false problems until we say otherwise.  The real discoveries are going to be hard work.  Most likely they will come from dialogue and some other processes.]
1. Social Field
2. Power Laws
3. Continuous Information Theory
4. dialogue
   
2. TAKE. [Now it comes to the "paying a hefty price" part of the outline.  What exactly is the nature of the hard work that will have to be done here?  What sorts of prize ideas or Conceits will we have to give up?  I've been thinking about an anecdote from my own career, where I gave up my first attempt at a PhD in mathematics in order to pursue a passion for mathematics-on-computers and artificial intelligence.  I'm still paying off the student loan I took out at that time.  Is that enough of a price to pay?  Probably not.  But, to put it another way, does what we're working on here reveal something about something that really matters to us?  If so, the Price is likely to be comensurate, but we would be willing to pay it.  For example, I wonder if there are there applications to my current job, in which I'm making some efforts to realize ideas I was thinking about back in 2002-2004, not yet with huge successes, but with something to show for it in any case.  And, looking ahead to Autumn of 2016, I'll need another job then.  Perhaps what we produce here will be relevant to that -- but the process of finding or creating one job seems to go along with Ruling Out all of the other ones!  Anyway, more reflection on this sort of concern is probably worthwhile.]
1. Conceits
2. Price
3. Ruling Out
4. ρ-function, resolution is seen in advance (but with emergent aspects?)
1. Schimel: Resolution
2. Harmon:
1. RETURN. [First, we should return to the more "familiar" parts of our Wild Wood of literature.  Any further comments on that?  But next, we should return to the real world with some ideas about Applications.  This is supposed to be the "Magic Flight" part of the outline, so maybe we put off enunciating the applications themselves until the dust settles (below).]
1. Applications
2. CHANGE. [Harmon points out that it is the Ability to Change that matters in some cases.  What will we do differently as a result of our thinking about phatics?  What can we share with others?  One thing that comes to mind is that we seem to be developing a "theory of exposition" that is compatible with but more detailed than Schimel's and Harmon's outlines.  So, one simple application will be as a set of Instructions for Writers.  If I'm guessing correctly, we can jump from the high-level points in our outline to the "leaf nodes" and conclude that ρ, for example, "corresponds to" Applications, Ability to Change, and Instructions for Writers in general.  Except, it probably corresponds to a bunch of other things in general, too, and we should make sure to get those things into these parts of the outline.]
1. Ability to Change
2. Instructions for Writers 
3. ROLL CREDITS!