12,080
edits
Changes
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Saturday November 30, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to searchDirectory talk:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 5 (view source)
Revision as of 16:18, 20 September 2010
, 16:18, 20 September 2010+ Inquiry Driven Systems 3.3. Reflection on Reflection (June 2002)
==Work Area 5==
==Work Area 5==
<pre>
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Reflection on Reflection
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
| Document History
|
| Subject: Inquiry Driven Systems: An Inquiry Into Inquiry
| Contact: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu>
| Version: Draft 8.75
| Created: 23 Jun 1996
| Revised: 10 Jun 2002
| Advisor: M.A. Zohdy
| Setting: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, USA
| Excerpt: Subdivision 3.3 (Reflection on Reflection)
|
| http://members.door.net/arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/awbrey/inquiry.htm
3.3. Reflection on Reflection
Before this discussion can proceed any further I need to introduce a
technical vocabulary that is specifically designed to articulate the
relation of thought to action and the relation of conduct to purpose.
This terminology makes use of a classical distinction between "action",
as simply taken, and "conduct", as fully considered in the light of its
means, its ways, and its ends. To the extent that affects, motivations,
and purposes are bound up with one another, the objects that lie within
the reach of this language that are able to be grasped by means of its
concepts provide a form of cognitive handle on the complex arrays of
affective impulsions and the unruly masses of emotional obstructions
that serve both to drive and to block the effective performance of
inquiry.
Once the differentiation between sheer activity and deliberate conduct is
comprehended on informal grounds and motivated by intuitive illustrations,
the formal capabilities of their logical distinction can be sharpened up
and turned to instrumental advantage in accomplishing two further aims:
1. To elucidate the precise nature of the
relation between action and conduct.
2. To facilitate a study of the whole variety
of contingent relations that are possible
and maintained between action and conduct.
When the relations among these categories are described and analyzed in
greater detail, it becomes possible forge their separate links together,
and thus to integrate their several lines of information into a fuller
comprehension of the relations among thought, the purposes of thought,
and the purposes of action in general.
It is possible to introduce the needed vocabulary, while at the same time
advancing a number of concurrent goals of this project, by resorting to the
following strategy. I inject into this discussion a selected set of passages
from the work of C.S. Peirce, chosen with a certain multiplicity of aims in mind.
1. These excerpts are taken from Peirce's most thoughtful definitions
and discussions of pragmatism. Thus, the general tenor of their
advice is pertinent to the long-term guidance of this project.
2. With regard to the target vocabulary, these texts are especially
acute in their ability to make all the right distinctions in all
the right places, and so they serve to illustrate the requisite
concepts in the context of their most appropriate uses.
3. Aside from their content being crucial to the scope of the present
inquiry, their form, manner, sequence, and interrelations supply
the kind of material needed to illustrate an important array
of issues involved in the topic of reflection.
4. Finally, my reflections on these passages are designed to
illustrate the variety of relations that occur between the
POV of a writer, especially as it develops through time, and
the POV of a reader, in the light of the ways that it deflects
its own echoes through a text in order to detect the POV of the
writer that led to its being formed in that manner.
The first excerpt appears in the form of a dictionary entry,
intended as a definition of "pragmatism".
| Pragmatism. The opinion that metaphysics is to be largely cleared up
| by the application of the following maxim for attaining clearness of
| apprehension: "Consider what effects, that might conceivably have
| practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have.
| Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception
| of the object."
|
|(Peirce, CP 5.2, 1878/1902).
The second excerpt presents another version of the "pragmatic maxim",
a recommendation about a way of clarifying meaning that can be taken
to stake out the general POV of pragmatism.
| Pragmaticism was originally enounced in the form of a maxim, as follows:
| Consider what effects that might conceivably have practical bearings you
| conceive the objects of your conception to have. Then, your conception
| of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object.
|
|(Peirce, CP 5.438, 1878/1905).
Over time, Peirce tried to express the basic idea
contained in the "pragmatic maxim" (PM) in numerous
different ways. In the remainder of this work, the
gist of the pragmatic maxim, the logical content that
appropriates its general intention over a variety of
particular contexts, the common denominator of all of
its versionary approximations, can be referred to with
maximal simplicity as "PM". Otherwise, subscripts can
be used in contexts where it is necessary to mention a
particular form, for instance, referring to the versions
just given as "PM_1" and "PM_2", respectively.
Considered side by side like this, any perceptible differences between
PM_1 and PM_2 appear to be trivial and insignificant, lacking in every
conceivable practical consequence, as indeed would be the case if both
statements were properly understood. One would like to say that both
variants belong to the same "pragmatic equivalence class" (PEC), where
all of the peculiarities of their individual expressions are absorbed
into the effective synonymy of a single operational maxim of conduct.
Unfortunately, no matter how well this represents the ideal, it does
not describe the present state of understanding with respect to the
pragmatic maxim, and this is the situation that my work is given
to address.
I am taking the trouble to recite both of these very close variants
of the pragmatic maxim because I want to examine how their subsequent
interpretations have tended to diverge over time and to analyze why the
traditions of interpretation that stem from them are likely to develop in
such a way that they eventually come to be at cross-purposes to each other.
There is a version of the pragmatic maxim, more commonly cited,
that uses "we" and "our" instead of "you" and "your". At first
sight, this appears to confer a number of clear advantages on the
expression of the maxim. The second person is ambiguous with regard
to number, and it can be read as both singular and plural, since the ...
Unfortunately, people have a tendency to translate "our concept of the object"
into "the meaning of a concept". This displacement of the genuine article from
"the object" to "the meaning" obliterates the contingently indefinite commonality
of "our" manner of thinking and replaces it with the absolutely definite pretension
to "the" unique truth of the matter // changing the emphasis from common conception
to unique intention. This apparently causes them to read "the whole of our conception"
as "the whole meaning of a conception" ... // from 'thee' and 'thy' to 'the' and 'our'//
The pragmatic maxim, taking the form of an injunctive prescription, a piece
of advice, or a practical recommendation, provides an operational description
of a certain philosophical outlook or "frame of reference". This is the general
POV that is called "pragmatism", or "pragmaticism", as Peirce later renamed it
when he wanted more pointedly to emphasize the principles that distingush his
own particular POV from the general run of its appropriations, interpretations,
and common misconstruals. Thus the pragmatic maxim, in a way that is deliberately
consistent with the principles of the POV to which it leads, enunciates a practical
idea and provides a truly pragmatic definition of that very same POV.
I am quoting a version of the pragmatic maxim whose form of address to
the reader exemplifies a "second person" POV on the part of the writer.
In spite of the fact that this particular variation does not appear in
print until a later date, my own sense of the matter leads me to think
that it actually reacaptures the original form of the pragmatic insight.
My reasons for believing this are connected with Peirce's early notion
of "tuity", the second person character of the mind's dialogue with
nature and with other minds, and a topic to be addressed in detail
at a later point in this discussion.
By way of a piece of evidence for this impression, one that is internal
to the texts, both versions begin with the second person POV that is
implied by their imperative mood.
Just as the sign in a sign relation addresses the interpretant intended
in the mind of its interpreter, PM_2 is addressed to an interpretant or
effect intended in the mind of its reader.
The third excerpt puts a gloss on the meaning of a "practical bearing"
and provides an alternative statement of the pragmatic maxim (PM_3).
| Such reasonings and all reasonings turn upon the idea that if one exerts
| certain kinds of volition, one will undergo in return certain compulsory
| perceptions. Now this sort of consideration, namely, that certain lines
| of conduct will entail certain kinds of inevitable experiences is what
| is called a "practical consideration". Hence is justified the maxim,
| belief in which constitutes pragmatism; namely,
|
| In order to ascertain the meaning of an intellectual conception one should
| consider what practical consequences might conceivably result by necessity
| from the truth of that conception; and the sum of these consequences will
| constitute the entire meaning of the conception.
|
|(Peirce, CP 5.9, 1905).
The fourth excerpt illustrates one of Peirce's many attempts to get the sense
of the pragmatic POV across by rephrasing the pragmatic maxim in an alternative
way (PM_4). In introducing this version, he addresses an order of prospective
critics who do not deem a simple heuristic maxim, much less one that concerns
itself with a routine matter of logical procedure, as forming a sufficient
basis for a whole philosophy.
| On their side, one of the faults that I think they might find with me is that
| I make pragmatism to be a mere maxim of logic instead of a sublime principle
| of speculative philosophy. In order to be admitted to better philosophical
| standing I have endeavored to put pragmatism as I understand it into the
| same form of a philosophical theorem. I have not succeeded any better
| than this:
|
| Pragmatism is the principle that every theoretical judgment expressible
| in a sentence in the indicative mood is a confused form of thought whose
| only meaning, if it has any, lies in its tendency to enforce a corresponding
| practical maxim expressible as a conditional sentence having its apodosis in
| the imperative mood.
|
|(Peirce, CP 5.18, 1903).
I am including Peirce's preamble to his restatement of the principle
because I think that the note of irony and the foreshadowing of comedy
intimated by it are important to understanding the gist of what follows.
In this rendition the statement of the principle of pragmatism is recast
in a partially self-referent fashion, and since it is itself delivered as
a "theoretical judgment expressible in a sentence in the indicative mood"
the full content of its own deeper meaning is something that remains to
be unwrapped, precisely through a self-application to its own expression
of the very principle it expresses. To wit, this statement, the form of
whose phrasing is forced by conventional biases to take on the style of
a declarative judgment, describes itself as a "confused form of thought",
in need of being amended, converted, and translated into its operational
interpretant, that is to say, its viable pragmatic equivalent.
The fifth excerpt, PM_5, is useful by way of additional clarification,
and was aimed to correct a variety of historical misunderstandings that
arose over time with regard to the intended meaning of the pragmatic POV.
| The doctrine appears to assume that the end of man is action —-
| a stoical axiom which, to the present writer at the age of
| sixty, does not recommend itself so forcibly as it did at
| thirty. If it be admitted, on the contrary, that action
| wants an end, and that that end must be something of a
| general description, then the spirit of the maxim itself,
| which is that we must look to the upshot of our concepts
| in order rightly to apprehend them, would direct us towards
| something different from practical facts, namely, to general
| ideas, as the true interpreters of our thought.
|
|(Peirce, CP 5.3, 1902).
If anyone thinks that an explanation on this order, whatever
degree of directness and explicitness one perceives it to have,
ought to be enough to correct any amount of residual confusion,
then one is failing to take into consideration the persistence
of a "particulate" interpretation, that is, a favored, isolated,
and partial interpretation, once it has taken or mistaken its
moment.
A sixth excerpt, PM_6, is useful in stating the bearing of
the pragmatic maxim on the topic of reflection, namely, that
it makes all of pragmatism boil down to nothing more or less
than a method of reflection.
| The study of philosophy consists, therefore, in reflexion, and pragmatism
| is that method of reflexion which is guided by constantly holding in view
| its purpose and the purpose of the ideas it analyzes, whether these ends
| be of the nature and uses of action or of thought. ...
|
| It will be seen that pragmatism is not a Weltanschauung but is a
| method of reflexion having for its purpose to render ideas clear.
|
|(Peirce, CP 5.13 note 1, 1902).
The seventh excerpt is a late reflection on the reception of pragmatism.
With a sense of exasperation that is almost palpable, this comment tries
to justify the maxim of pragmatism and to reconstruct its misreadings by
pinpointing a number of false impressions that the intervening years have
piled on it, and it attempts once more to correct the deleterious effects
of these mistakes. Recalling the very conception and birth of pragmatism,
it reviews its initial promise and its intended lot in the light of its
subsequent vicissitudes and its apparent fate. Adopting the style of
a "post mortem" analysis, it presents a veritable autopsy of the ways
that the main truth of pragmatism, for all its practicality, can be
murdered by a host of misdissecting disciplinarians, by its most
devoted followers. This doleful but dutiful undertaking is
presented next.
| This employment five times over of derivates of 'concipere' must then have
| had a purpose. In point of fact it had two. One was to show that I was
| speaking of meaning in no other sense than that of intellectual purport.
| The other was to avoid all danger of being understood as attempting to
| explain a concept by percepts, images, schemata, or by anything but
| concepts. I did not, therefore, mean to say that acts, which are
| more strictly singular than anything, could constitute the purport,
| or adequate proper interpretation, of any symbol. I compared action
| to the finale of the symphony of thought, belief being a demicadence.
| Nobody conceives that the few bars at the end of a musical movement
| are the purpose of the movement. They may be called its upshot.
|
|(Peirce, CP 5.402 note 3, 1906).
There are notes of emotion ranging from apology to pique to be detected
in this eulogy of pragmatism, and all the manner of a pensive elegy that
affects the tone of its contemplation. It recounts the various ways that
the good of the best among our maxims is "oft interrèd with their bones",
how the aim of the pragmatic maxim to clarify thought gets clouded over
with the dust of recalcitrant prepossessions, drowned in the drift of
antediluvian predilections, lost in the clamor of prevailing trends
and the shuffle of assorted novelties, and even buried with the
fractious contentions that it can tend on occasion to inspire.
It details the evils that are apt to be done in the name of
this précis of pragmatism if ever it is construed beyond
its ambition, and sought to be elevated from a working
POV to the imperial status of a Weltanshauung.
The next three elaborations of this POV are bound to sound mysterious
at this point, but they are necessary to the integrity of the whole work.
In any case, it is a good thing to assemble all these pieces in one place,
for future reference if nothing else.
| When we come to study the great principle of continuity
| and see how all is fluid and every point directly partakes
| the being of every other, it will appear that individualism
| and falsity are one and the same. Meantime, we know that man
| is not whole as long as he is single, that he is essentially a
| possible member of society. Especially, one man's experience is
| nothing, if it stands alone. If he sees what others cannot, we
| call it hallucination. It is not "my" experience, but "our"
| experience that has to be thought of; and this "us" has
| indefinite possibilities.
|
|(Peirce, CP 5.402 note 2, 1893).
| Nevertheless, the maxim has approved itself to the writer, after
| many years of trial, as of great utility in leading to a relatively
| high grade of clearness of thought. He would venture to suggest that
| it should always be put into practice with conscientious thoroughness,
| but that, when that has been done, and not before, a still higher grade
| of clearness of thought can be attained by remembering that the only
| ultimate good which the practical facts to which it directs attention
| can subserve is to further the development of concrete reasonableness;
| so that the meaning of the concept does not lie in any individual
| reactions at all, but in the manner in which those reactions
| contribute to that development. ...
|
| Almost everybody will now agree that the ultimate good
| lies in the evolutionary process in some way. If so, it
| is not in individual reactions in their segregation, but
| in something general or continuous. Synechism is founded
| on the notion that the coalescence, the becoming continuous,
| the becoming governed by laws, the becoming instinct with
| general ideas, are but phases of one and the same process
| of the growth of reasonableness.
|
|(Peirce, CP 5.3, 1902).
| No doubt, Pragmaticism makes thought ultimately apply to action exclusively -—
| to conceived action. But between admitting that and either saying that it
| makes thought, in the sense of the purport of symbols, to consist in acts, or
| saying that the true ultimate purpose of thinking is action, there is much the
| same difference as there is between saying that the artist-painter's living art
| is applied to dabbing paint upon canvas, and saying that that art-life consists
| in dabbing paint, or that its ultimate aim is dabbing paint. Pragmaticism makes
| thinking to consist in the living inferential metaboly of symbols whose purport
| lies in conditional general resolutions to act.
|
|(Peirce, CP 5.402 note 3, 1906).
The final excerpt touches on a what can appear as a quibbling triviality
or a significant problem, depending on one's POV. It mostly arises when
sophisticated mentalities make a point of trying to apply the pragmatic
maxim in the most absurd possible ways they can think of. I apologize
for quoting such a long passage, but the full impact of Peirce's point
only develops over an extended argument.
| There can, of course, be no question that a man will act
| in accordance with his belief so far as his belief has any
| practical consequences. The only doubt is whether this is
| all that belief is, whether belief is a mere nullity so far
| as it does not influence conduct. What possible effect upon
| conduct can it have, for example, to believe that the diagonal
| of a square is incommensurable with the side? ...
|
| The proposition that the diagonal is incommensurable has stood in the textbooks
| from time immemorial without ever being assailed and I am sure that the most
| modern type of mathematician holds to it most decidedly. Yet it seems
| quite absurd to say that there is any objective practical difference
| between commensurable and incommensurable.
|
| Of course you can say if you like that the act of expressing a quantity as a
| rational fraction is a piece of conduct and that it is in itself a practical
| difference that one kind of quantity can be so expressed and the other not.
| But a thinker must be shallow indeed if he does not see that to admit a
| species of practicality that consists in one's conduct about words and
| modes of expression is at once to break down all the bars against the
| nonsense that pragmatism is designed to exclude.
|
| What the pragmatist has his pragmatism for is to be able to say: here is
| a definition and it does not differ at all from your confusedly apprehended
| conception because there is no practical difference. But what is to prevent
| his opponent from replying that there is a practical difference which consists
| in his recognizing one as his conception and not the other? That is, one is
| expressible in a way in which the other is not expressible.
|
| Pragmatism is completely volatilized if you admit that sort of practicality.
|
|(Peirce, CP 5.32-33, 1903).
Let me just state what I think are the three main issues at stake in this passage,
leaving a fuller consideration of their implications to a later stage of this work.
1. Reflective agents, as a price for their extra powers of reflection, fall prey
to a new class of errors and liabilities, any one of which might be diagnosed
as a "reflective illusion" or a "delusion of reflection" (DOR). There is one
type of DOR that is especially easy for reflective agents to fall into, and
they must constantly monitor its swings in order to guard the integrity of
their reflective processes against the variety of false images that it
admits and the diversity of misleading pathways that it leads onto.
This DOR turns on thinking that objects of a nature to be reflected
on by an agent must have a nature that is identical to the nature
of the agent that reflects on them.
An agent acts under many different kinds of constraints,
whether by choice of method, compulsion of nature, or the
mere chance of looking outward in a given direction and
henceforth taking up a fixed outlook. The fact that one
is constrained to reason in a particular manner, whether
one is predisposed to cognitive, computational, conceptual,
or creative terms, and whether one is restrained to finitary,
imaginary, rational, or transcendental expressions, does not
mean that one is bound to consider only the sorts of objects
that fall into the corresonding lot. It only forces the
issue of just how literally or figuratively one is able
to grasp the matter in view.
To imagine that the nature of the object is bound to be the same
as the nature of the sign, or to think that the law that determines
the object's matter has to be the same as the rule that codifies the
agent's manner, are tanatamount to special cases of those reflective
illusions whose form of diagnosis I just outlined. For example, it
is the delusion of a purely cognitive and rational psychology, on
seeing the necessity of proceeding in a cognitive and rational
manner, to imagine that its subject is also purely cognitive
and rational, and to think that this abstraction of the
matter has any kind of coherence when considered
against the integrity of its object.
2. The general rule of pragmatism to seek the difference that
makes a difference has its corollories in numerous principles
of indifference. Not every difference in the meantime makes
a difference in the end. That is, not every difference of
circumstance that momentarily impacts on the trajectory of
a system nor every difference of eventuality that transiently
develops within its course makes a difference in its ultimate
result, and this is true no matter whether one considers the
history of intertwined conduct and experience that belongs to
a single agent or whether it pertains to a whole community of
agents. Furthermore, not every difference makes a difference
of consequence with respect to every conception or purpose
that seeks to include it under its "sum". Finally, not
every difference makes the same sort of difference with
regard to each of the intellectual concepts or purported
outcomes that it has a bearing on.
To express the issue in a modern idiom, this is the question of whether
a concept has a definition that is "path-dependent" or "path-invariant",
that is, when the essence of that abstract conception is reduced to a
construct that employs only operational terms. It is because of this
issue that most notions of much import, like mass, meaning, momentum,
and number, are defined in terms of the appropriate equivalence classes
and operationalized relative to their proper frames of reference.
3. The persistent application of the pragmatic maxim, especially in mathematics,
eventually brings it to bear on one rather ancient question. The issue is
over the reality of conceptual objects, including mathematical "objects"
and Platonic "forms" or "ideas". In this context, the adjective "real"
means nothing other than "having properties", but the import of this
"having" has to be grasped in the same moment of understanding that
this old schematic of thought loads the verb "to have" with one of
its strongest connotations, namely, that nothing has a property in
the proper sense of the word unless it has that property in its own
right, without regard to what anybody thinks about it. In other words,
to say that an object has a property is to say that it has that property
independently, if not of necessity exclusively, of what anybody may think
about the matter. But what can it mean for one to say that a mathematical
object is "real", that it has the properties that it has independently of
what anybody thinks of it, when all that one has of this object are but
signs of it, and when the only access that one has to this object is
by means of thinking, a process of shuffling, sifting, and sorting
through nothing more real or more ideal than signs in the mind?
The acuteness of this question can be made clear if one pursues the
accountability of the pragmatic maxim into higher orders of infinity.
Consider the number of "effects" that form the "whole" of a conception
in PM1, or else the number of "consequences" that fall under the "sum"
in PM2. What happens when it is possible to conceive of an infinity of
practical consequences as falling among the consequential effects or the
effective consequences of an intellectual conception? The point of this
question is not to require that all of the items of practical bearing be
surveyed in a single glance, that all of these effects and consequences
be enumerated at once, but only that the cardinal number of conceivable
practical bearings, or effects and consequences, be infinite.
Recognizing the fact that "conception" is an "-ionized" term, and so can
denote an ongoing process as well as a finished result, it is possible
to ask the cardinal question of conceptual accountability in another way:
What is one's conception of the practical consequences that result by
necessity from a case where the "conception" of practical consequences
that result by necessity from the truth of a conception constitutes an
infinite process, that is, from a case where the conceptual process of
generating these consequences is capable of exceeding any finite bound
that one can conceive?
It is may be helpful to append at this point a few additional comments
that Peirce made with respect to the concept of reality in general.
| And what do we mean by the real? It is a conception
| which we must first have had when we discovered that
| there was an unreal, an illusion; that is, when we
| first corrected ourselves. Now the distinction for
| which alone this fact logically called, was between
| an 'ens' relative to private inward determinations,
| to the negations belonging to idiosyncrasy, and
| an 'ens' such as would stand in the long run.
| The real, then, is that which, sooner or later,
| information and reasoning would finally result
| in, and which is therefore independent of the
| vagaries of me and you. Thus, the very origin
| of the conception of reality shows that this
| conception essentially involves the notion
| of a COMMUNITY, without definite limits, and
| capable of a definite increase of knowledge.
|
| (Peirce, CP 5.311, 1868).
| The real is that which is not whatever we
| happen to think it, but is unaffected by
| what we may think of it.
|
|(Peirce, CE 2:467, 1871).
| Thus we may define the real as that whose characters
| are independent of what anybody may think them to be.
|
|(Peirce, CP 5.405, 1878).
Having read these exhibits into evidence, if not yet to the
point of self-evidence, and considered them to some degree
for the individual lights they throw on the subject, let me
now examine the relationships that can be found among them.
These excerpts are significant not only for what they say, but for how
they say it. What they say, their matter, is crucial to the whole course
the present inquiry. How they say it, their manner, is itself the matter
of numerous further discussions, a few of which, carried out by Peirce
himself, are already included in the sample presented.
Depending on the reader's POV, this sequence of excerpts can appear to
reflect anything from a radical change and a serious correction of the
underlying POV to a mere clarification and a natural development of it,
all maintaining the very same spirit as the original expression of it.
Whatever the case, let these three groups of excerpts be recognized as
forming three successive "levels of reflection" (LOR's) on the series of
POV's in question, regardless of whether one sees them as disconnected,
as ostensibly related, or else as inherently the very same POV in spirit.
From my own POV, that strives to share this spirit in some measure,
it appears that the whole variety of statements, no matter what their
dates of original composition, initial publication, or subsequent revision,
only serve to illustrate different LOR's on what is essentially and practically
a single and coherent POV, one that can be drawn on as a unified frame of reference
and henceforward referred to as the "pragmatic" POV or as just plain "pragmatism".
There is a case to be made for the ultimate inseparability of all of the issues
that are brought up in the foregoing sample of excerpts, but an interval of time
and a tide of text are likely to come and go before there can be any sense of an
end to the period of questioning, before all of the issues that these texts betide
can begin to be settled, before there can be a due measure of conviction on what
they charge inquiry with, and before the repercussions of the whole sequence of
reflections they lead into can be brought to a point of closure. If one accepts
the idea that all of these excerpts are expressions of one and the same POV, but
considered at different points of development, as enunciated, as reviewed, and
as revised over an interval of many years, then they can be taken to illustrate
the diverse kinds of changes that occur in the formulation, the development,
and the clarification of a continuing POV.
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
</pre>
