Between Positivism and Empiricism

I understand, thank you.
As for 2b, Hart gives this example: Suppose there is a sign at the entrance to a public park that says: ‘No vehicles allowed in the park’. Now suppose the municipality wants to erect a monument to the fallen of the World War, made from an old armored car that was in the war. Is it permissible to bring it into the park for the purpose of building the monument? A formalist interpretation would say: It is prohibited, because it is contrary to the prohibition stated in the sign. A purposive interpretation would say: It is permitted, because that is not the purpose of the prohibition.

My question is, is the interpretive tool in the hands of the positivist only formalism? I understood it to be so, because the positivist interprets the language of the law and ignores values and reasons, just as the formalist does not?

The opposite of purposive interpretation is literal interpretation. Formalism is a slightly different matter. Literal interpretation adheres to language but is not necessarily formalistic.
Hart's example is discussed in my book On General and Particular (the second in the Talmudic Logic series). I think formalism ignores more than just reasons and purposes. But that's semantics.

Ash clarification what is between formalistic and literal?

Here too it is semantics ????
This is a strictly kosher conceptual analysis, isn't it? I really want to understand these concepts (for their own sake, and also because they help to understand the Torah of Barsik the logic of the Gershish)

If you define formal and conceptual, we can discuss the relationship between them. When you ask for the definitions themselves, it's a semantic discussion.