One moves between things in an analogical fashion, and this in the ontological sense.
Analog as adjective, as relating to a signal represented by a continuously variable quantity, such as a spatial position or voltage for example.
As from the Greek 'analogos', or proportionate, this proportion, in its continuous variability, is onological. The moving of this proportion is onology.
For us, the being of a thing perceived is onological, becoming an analogy for other things, understanding by moving from thing to thing.
And the link between language and the world is one of analogy, but the relation of things in the world is one of onology. Inasmuch as language is onological, it is analogy.
And things are similar (if not dissimilar) in their relative ease of analogy, often along onological ranges.
It is easy to move from one thing to another if they are connected more proximally onologically, as opposed to more distally.
And the being of a thing is as much the position that it holds on such ranges as it is the positions that it does not hold, or the things that it is not.
A thing also exists as a range, and this can be understood discretely as a bell curve, namely this thing exists across the variability of potentiality represented under a curve delimited on both sides. What lies outside of the range, the thing is not. Yet also note that limits, at least mathematically, can never be reached. So while the thing is not the next range, there really is no separation between such ranges as one thing can never exclude the being of another. Again, this is simply an analogy for how things exist, a two dimensional curve defining what appears to be at least a 4-dimensional range. A good example, but now think of an n-dimensional range, and the delimitation on such a range, defining it, separating it, but by principle all part of it.
This is the theory of ranges and delimitation.
14 comments:
When's the pop quiz?
Sexy diagrams Moanez. But there you go again, classifying and putting things into your binary vision of the world.
0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1
When measuring, I use a three fold (L x W x H) or side, front and top. My concept drawings are more of an onology. Or am I allowed to say that?
I think I'm going to need a hands on demonstration followed by a week long work strategy to develop this. When can I expect your sweet ass in Winnipeg?
I am not proposing anything binary, the use of a range is just a tool to understand. And the range here is not just three-fold, it appears n-fold.
Although presence and absence are the natural state if you will, and there's nothing much more binary than that.
I am only semi-present on this blog, and so I unnaturally transcend the binary state.
I don't conceive of computer or digital presence or absence as anything unnatural, clearly it is part of the world.
And semi-present or semi-unpresent, it's all conceivable in this way, but this does not mean that it is this way.
Just a tool of analyses, that's all.
Yet I would say that there is a base level, or an ulitmate level dialectic going on here, involving mind and matter, or what in the theory of ranges and delimitation is called the range of material extant.
Too much!
:)
or, in the spirit of ranges and delimitations...
too little!
Really inspiring and interesting...it's going to take me a few days to digest this action...in the mean time I am going to start up on a batch of small paintings dedicated to sections of text from this blog...
Cheers.
T.
I didn't mean to suggest that the digital medium was unnatural, but that if I transcend the 'natural state' as you put it, then by definition that would be unnatural, no? Although I was really half-joking...
At any rate, I dislike binaries, I much prefer continuums. Categorial oppositions are very much an artefact of the human mind, or at least most investigations into them have demonstrated as much, in many fields.
Jeez I wish I understood this post. Maybe I'll read it again more slowly next time. Or can you dumb it down for me? You want to measure something and can't decide between metric and imperial, right?
I have also read an account of how categorical pairs are used in society to discriminate, let alone their failure in fully capturing the nature of reality.
And a range is a continuum defined by poles, which in can be descried as extremes in reciprocal mediation.
The limitless continuum
Beginning where it ends
Ending where it middles
Middling minds cannot grasp it
Without limits
"I`m not a woman, I`m not a man, I`m something that you`ll never understand"
-the immortal Purple Rain and his majesty
Gotta love Prince.
Continuums vs ranges? Is that where this conversation ends...?
I prefer to think of research in terms of continuums, and I like qualitative research because of it's "continuum quality", where the poles are not defined rather more of the continuum is revealed as you progress.
However, I do see the efficiency of a range, it makes things more understandable and more reasonable.
Absolutely gotta love Prince.
I started reading Satre Being and Nothingness. My meager mind is a bit tangled at this point. I looked up onology because I was sure that I didn't understand what it meant exactly or correctly. I was lead here and now I am closer to understanding....maybe!
Post a Comment