Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
FIGURE 3.
and let there be an (albegraic) composition “*” such that
Obs 1 * Obs 2 = Obs 3 ,
(10)
then the coordinating operations COORD appear to coordinate the whole
(i.e., the composition of the parts) as a composition of the apparent co-
ordinations of the parts (see proof in Appendix B):
COORD(Obs 1 * Obs 2 ) = COORD(Obs 1 ) * COORD(Obs 2 ).
(11)
In other words, the coordination of compositions (i.e., the whole) corre-
sponds to the composition of coordinations.
This is the condition for what may be called the “principle of cognitive
continuity” (e.g., breaking pieces of chalk produces pieces of chalk).
This may be contrasted with the “principle of cognitive diversity” which
arises when the Obs i and the composition “*” are not the Eigenvalues and
compositions complementing the coordination COORD¢:
COORD¢(Obs 1 * Obs 2 ) π COORD¢(Obs 1 ) * COORD¢(Obs 2 ),
(12)
and which says that the whole is neither more nor is it less than the sum of
its parts: it is different . Moreover, the formalism in which this sentiment
appears (expression (12)) leaves little doubt that it speaks neither of
“wholes,” nor of “parts” but of a subject's distinction drawn between two
states of affairs which by an (other) observer may be seen as being not
qualitatively, but only quantitatively distinct.
*****
Eigenvalues have been found ontologically to be discrete, stable,
separable and composable, while ontogenetically to arise as equilibria that
determine themselves through circular processes. Ontologically, Eigenval-
ues and objects, and likewise, ontogenetically, stable behavior and the man-
ifestation of a subject's “grasp” of an object cannot be distinguished. In both
cases “objects” appear to reside exclusively in the subject's own experience
of his sensori-motor coordinations; that is, “objects” appear to be ex-
clusively subjective? Under which conditions, then, do objects assume
“objectivity?”
Search WWH ::




Custom Search