ONT Re: Inquiry Driven Systems
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
| Document History
|
| Subject: Inquiry Driven Systems: An Inquiry Into Inquiry
| Contact: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu>
| Version: Draft 8.70
| Created: 23 Jun 1996
| Revised: 06 Jan 2002
| Advisor: M.A. Zohdy
| Setting: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, USA
| Excerpt: Section 1.3.4 (Discussion of Formalization: Concrete Examples)
| Excerpt: Subsection 1.3.4.12 (Objective Plans & Levels)
|
| http://members.door.net/arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/awbrey/inquiry.htm
1.3.4.12 Objective Plans & Levels (cont.)
The foregoing considerations lead up to the organizing conception of
an "objective framework" (OF), in which objects can be analyzed into
sets of constituent objects, perhaps proceeding recursively to some
limiting level where the fundamental objects of thought are thought
to rest -- or not. If an OF is felt to be completely unique and
uniquely complete, then people tend to regard it as constituting
a veritable "ontology", but I will not be able to go that far.
The recognition of plural and fallible perspectives that goes
with pragmatic forms of thinking does not see itself falling
into line any time soon with any one or only one ontology.
On the opposite score, there is no reason to deny the possibility
that a unique and complete OF exists. Indeed, the hope that such
a "place to stand" does exist, somehow, somewhere, somewhen, often
serves to provide inquiry with a beneficial regulative principle or
a heuristic hypothesis to work on. But it just so happens, for the
run of "finitely informed creatures" (FIC's) at any rate, that the
existence of an ideal framework is a contingency to be established
after the fact, at least, somewhat nearer toward the ultimate end
of inquiry than the present time is apt to mark.
In this project, an OF embodies one or more "objective genres" (OG's), also
called "forms of analysis" (FOA's) or "forms of synthesis" (FOS's), each of
which delivers its own rendition of a "great chain of being" for all of the
objects under its purview. In effect, each OG develops its own version of
an "ontological hierarchy" (OH), designed independently of the conceivable
others to capture an aspect of structure in its objective domain.
For now, the level of an OF operates as a catch-all, giving the projected
discussion the elbow room it needs to range over an unspecified variety
of different OG's and to place the particular OG's of active interest in
a running context of comparative evaluations and developmental options.
Any given OG can appear under the alias of a "form of analysis" (FOA)
or a "form of synthesis" (FOS), depending on the direction of prevailing
interest. A notion that is frequently invoked for the same purpose is that
of an "ontological hierarchy" (OH), but I will use this only provisionally,
and only so long as it is clear that alternative ontologies can always be
proposed for the same space of objects.
An OG embodies many "objective motives" or "objective motifs" (OM's).
If an OG constitutes a genus, or a generic pattern of object structure,
then the OM's amount to its specific and individual exemplars. Thus, an
OM can appear in the guise of a particular instance, trial, or "run" of
the general form of analytic or synthetic procedure that accords with
the protocols of a given OG.
In order to provide a way of talking about various objective points of view
in general without having to specify a particular level, I will use the term
"objective concern" (OC) to cover any individual OF, OG, or OM.
An OG, in its general way, or an OM, in its individual way, begins by
relating each object in its purview to a unique set of further objects,
called the "components", "constituents", "effects", "ingredients", or
"instances" of that object with respect to that "objective concern" (OC).
As long as a discussion remains fixed to what is visible within the scope
of a particular OC, the collected effects of each object in view constitute
its "active ingredients", supplying it with a unique decomposition that fixes
it to a degree sufficient for all purposes conceivable within that discussion.
Contemplated from an outside perspective, however, the status of these effects
as the "defining unique determinants" (DUD's) of each object under examination
is something to be questioned. The supposed constituents of an object that are
obvious with respect to one OC can be regarded with suspicion from the points of
view of alternative OC's, and their apparent status as rock-bottom substantives
can find itself reconstituted in the guise of provisional placeholders (placebos
or excipients) that precipitately index the potential operation of more subtly
active ingredients.
If a single OG could be unique and the realization of every object
in it could be complete, then there might be some basis for saying
that the elements of objects and the extensions of objects are known,
and thus that the very "objects of objects" (OOO's) are determined by
its plan. In practice, however, it takes a diversity of overlapping
and not entirely systematic OG's to make up a moderately useful OF.
What gives an OG a definite constitution is the naming of a space
of objects that falls under its purview and the setting down of
a system of axioms that affects its generating relations.
What gives an OM a determinate character from moment to moment
is the particular selection of objects and relational linkages
from its governing OG that it can say it has appropriated,
apprehended, or actualized, that is to say, the portion
of its OG that it can say actually belongs to it, and
whether they make up a lot or a little, the roles
that it can say it has made its own.
In setting out the preceding characterization, I have reiterated what is
likely to seem like an anthropomorphism, prefacing each requirement of the
candidate OM with the qualification "it can say". This is done in order to
emphasize that an OM's command of a share of its OG is partly a function of
the interpretive effability that it brings to bear on the object domain and
partly a matter of the expressive power that it is able to dictate over its
own development.
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤