Directory talk:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 1
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Monday December 02, 2024
< Directory talk:Jon Awbrey
Jump to navigationJump to searchRevision as of 01:00, 20 September 2010 by Jon Awbrey (talk | contribs) (→1.3.5. Discussion of Formalization : Specific Objects: del merged text)
Work Area
1.3.
1.3.5. Discussion of Formalization : Specific Objects
If inquiry begins in doubt, then inquiry into inquiry begins in doubt about doubt. All things considered, the formula "y_0 = y y" has to be taken as the first attempt at a description of the problem, a hypothesis about the nature of inquiry, or an image that is tossed out by way of getting an initial fix on the object in question. Everything in this account so far, and everything else that I am likely to add, can only be reckoned as hypothesis, whose accuracy, pertinence, and usefulness can be tested, judged, and redeemed only after the fact of proposing it and after the facts to which it refers have themselves been gathered up. A number of problems present themselves due to the context in which the present inquiry is aimed to present itself. The hypothesis that suggests itself to one person, as worth exploring at a particular time, does not always present itself to another person as worth exploring at the same time, or even necessarily to the same person at another time. In a community of inquiry that extends beyond an isolated person and in a process of inquiry that extends beyond a singular moment in time, it is therefore necessary to consider the nature of the communication process that the discussion of inquiry in general and the discussion of formalization in particular need to invoke for their ultimate utility. Solitude and solipsism are no solution to the problems of community and communication, since even an isolated individual, if ever there was, is, or comes to be such a thing, has to maintain the lines of communication that are required to integrate past, present, and prospective selves -- in other words, translating everything into present terms, the parts of one's actually present self that involve actual experiences and present observations, do present expectations as reflective of actual memories, and do present intentions as reflective of actual hopes. Consequently, the dialogue that one holds with oneself is every bit as problematic as the dialogue that one enters with others. Others only surprise one in other ways than one ordinarily surprises oneself. I recognize inquiry as beginning with a "surprising phenomenon" or a "problematic situation", more briefly described as a "surprise" or a "problem", respectively. These are the types of moments that try our souls, the instances of events that instigate inquiry as an effort to achieve their own resolution. Surprises and problems are experienced as afflicted with an irritating uncertainty or a compelling difficulty, one that calls for a response on the part of the agent in question: 1. A "surprise" calls for an explanation to resolve the uncertainty that is present in it. This uncertainty is associated with a difference between observations and expectations. 2. A "problem" calls for a plan of action to resolve the difficulty that is present in it. This difficulty is associated with a difference between observations and intentions. To express this diversity in a unified formula: Both types of inquiry begin with a "delta", a compact term that admits of expansion as a debt, a difference, a difficulty, a discrepancy, a dispersion, a distribution, a doubt, a duplicity, or a duty. Expressed another way, inquiry begins with a doubt about one's object, whether this means what is true of a case, an object, or a world, what to do about reaching a goal, or whether the hoped-for goal is really good for oneself -- with all that these questions lead to in essence, in deed, or in fact. Perhaps there is an inexhaustible reality that issues in these apparent mysteries and recurrent crises, but, by the time I say this much, I am already indulging in a finite image, a hypothesis about what is going on. If nothing else, then, one finds again the familiar pattern, where the formative relation between the informal and the formal merely serves to remind one anew of the relationship between the infinite and the finite.