Keith, I apologize for using some argumentive rhetoric that pictures
only the writer as being white soft and fuzzy while all the rest
around are assumed to be in deep shit. This is why I would love to
shift our focus from the people as individuals claiming some stuff
onto the principles they support.

1. Nobody on my memory ventures in to disputing Kant/Fichte's view
on the `backwards reasoning pattern' humans entertain. I daresay, it
is because this view stands far apart from the frame deducted from
the Aristotle/Wittgenstein's formal logic assumptions; it falls out,
and normally current academic world does not know how to handle this
important remark. This is why nobody comments on this.

2. What also completely falls out from the focus is some basics of
the worldview developed by the classic Germans, and namely: the only
reality given to us is our praxis. In other words: people know only
the stuff they are engaged with through any type of activity
(aka `praxis'. And in this context the word `praxis' is a profound
term). Exactly as in the case with science (its worldview, frame of
reference), this `activity approach' builds on this activity idea,
and I encourage the guys who want to discuss this part to
distinguish between the metafizical quarters and further
deductions/consequences.

3. The next step was undertaken by Sir Karl Popper, who suggested
viewing the world in three projections/dimensions/planes, which can
be dubbed as:
-- fizical, material in its vulgar, empiricistic, ol' traditional
baconian `hard science' representation;
-- non-material, Plato-style, spiritual, theological-like
representation; and
-- procedural, action plane. This plane is hard to be verbally
expressed, as our language normally renders only still pictures; we
usually describe processes as consecutive still pictures; grafic
helps a lot in this area.
According to Math all the three planes' projections onto each other
equal zero; the fizical interpretation of this is that we have to
discuss each plane/projection separately.
Important: each plane also implies different language (set of
notions and categories/axioms in use).

Summary: we view our world as what people come into contact with,
and discuss various projections of those fenomena.

4. Keith said: `most school age students do not write books,
articles etc.' Of course, Keith; if I recollect it right, Socrates
was among that number, too. Well, can we view oral speech as being a
text?
This is why the matter is in the principle: what is a text?
According to the view sketched above it is a joint venture pictured
in two planes: letters as material carriers, `fizical world
representation' and their meaning viewed in the immaterial plane;
the two are linked together (as you already have guessed) via our
activity.
Here, at last, we arrive to the model of the text in question:

Sign -- > link -- > meaning.

5. Just for your information: the study I would love to take is
heavily loaded with practical intentions: the resulting view
(models) will help us deal with the areas where human thinking is
engaged, the decision-making areas, such as advertising, finance,
organization development, politics, etc.
This is why the intention is not just `pure scientific inquiry'; it
is something that we urgently need in our everyday life. The form
(tools, methods) is scientific, yes.

Mike Chumakin