[PhilWeb] Re: Ueber die Abstraktion

Am 15.11.2023 um 13:48 schrieb Dr. Dr. Thomas Fröhlich <dr.thomas.froehlich(a)t-online.de>de>: um das anzusprechen, was Dich sicher am meisten interessiert, füge ich gern ein konkretes Beispiel an. Es handelt nicht nur von Photonen und Laser, sondern von sogenannten Menschen :-) Also von Mengen von Menschen, die aber als Individuen, und nicht als Elemente von Populationen angesprochen werden. USACAs sind unintentionally systematizing aspects of agency, gemäß folgendem Auszug (aus Artikel für Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley, wird aktuell einem review unterzogen). Und hierbei, Du wirst erschaudern, von L I E B E !!!

Unintentionally systematizing aspects of agency A semantic system is seen as having emerged from unintentionally systematizing aspects of contributing agencies, enacted in course of their structured interaction. The setting in which the participating processes will interact is pre-structured by the moment-and-place-transcending capacities of these unintentionally systematizing aspects of contributing agencies, or USACAs, as they are called in the following. Systematization refers not only to moment-and-place-transcending, but also to individuality-transcending aspects. Something that can be sharedwith others in such an individuality-and-moment-transcending manner must be implied in the contributing capacities, hence in semantic systems, these potentially generalizable features do not replace or suspend the individual ones. Instead, the individuality of processes and their specified interactions remains intact. In effect, a dynamic and flexible balance of elements and their set are established. To accomplish the double task of staying what one is and simultaneously transcending it entails certain operational requirements that must have been previously met. These requirements can be separated logically, and in retrospect without assuming that they in fact form a series of distinguishable steps. The emergence of complexity deserves a thorough investigation, nevertheless. Naming the logically mandatory steps of semantic system creation starts with a need to be principally able to orient oneself toward the other, and to further work on this established, oriented contact. The next requirement concerns the establishment of the above-mentioned balance of being oneself and engaging with others. If this engagement would leave the contacting partners completely unchanged, it would not have been a real contact at all, and at the least one would not be able to distinguish a contact from a non-contact. So, something “inside” the interacting partners must change in course of their interaction. The term “inside” has a meaning that transcends the merely spatial locality aspect. Instead, it helps to characterize a process’ effect- or meaning-generating realm, seen as its semantic volume or the extension of its effectuated setting. This, in turn, allows us to develop a concept of semantic pseudo-spatiality, best described not in metered distances but in terms of interaction-sourced structuring effectivity. The latter becomes concentrated or is diluted to eventually fade out, depending on the process-connecting strength of the system’s applied systematization. Unlike metric space, semantic spaces as an aspect of semantic systems may converge, just as these systems may. The corresponding superimposition has the form of a stepwise and partial approximation in terms of shareable aspects of agency. It is a convergence or concrescence, as called in Whitehead’s process ontology. Again, an overall orchestration does not replace or suspend the participating orchestras, just as an orchestra does not replace or suspend its contributing musicians. A semantic system remains a vivid structure, hence open to interacting and partially or totally merging with other systems, transcending the process- and systems-individuality that the same time successfully prevails. As outlined in this short introduction, some features qualify processes, their interactions, and their systematization to become semantic or meaningful. In the following chapters, prominent aspects of qualifying requirements are discussed in detail. The main sources of human reasoning in the form of philosophy are cited, and the random path leading to the eventual concept creation is illustrated. With the inevitable heterogeneity of any philosophical background, the proposed theory must convince on its own; it cannot be simply derived from a somehow accepted previous one. It has a tentative character, requiring challenging questions and a thorough examination. Parenting, care and human love: Unintentional and intentional semantic agency at work A systems approach concerning the look from inside an interaction, together with a set of interactions allows us to address the existential level and subjectivity. USACA in living beings including men additionally applies tacit or explicit anticipation, to become intentional. In human life, the most prominent form of USACA and ISACA application is the one invested in parenting and care. Both activities are concerned with establishing and maintaining a resilient and endurable form of interactional inside-with-outside structures to be realized by the child and the person taken care of. Tacit anticipation is implied in momentary realized activities in all living beings. Additionally, men beyond infancy shape their anticipation in an also explicit form. For good reason, parenting and care, besides their “technical” aspects, are also seen as the work of love. Love always presupposes a being-concerned-with; in case of success, it implies the convergence of the individual perspective into an also shared one. The same holds true for the mutually attuned co-acting, emerging from the underlaying sources. The participants’ ongoing structural continuity is seen as a ring- or spiral-shaped enclosure, and the semantic center as the lovers’ heart. Love is not static, but seen as pulsating like the heart, or in flames. It directly arises from the participants’ coherences’ basis, and not from intellectual planning. It lives a genuine inside-transcending inside and cannot be forced upon from the inside’s outside. Its synchronized harmony requires a balance kept alive, in difference to an engulfment and an intrusion ignoring the other’s genuine inside, and this inside’s eigen rhythm. Viele Grüße Thomas