Changes

I initially characterized discussion and formalization, in regard to each other, as being an &ldquo;actively instrumental&rdquo; versus a &ldquo;passively objective&rdquo; aspect, component, or &ldquo;face&rdquo; of the inquiry <math>y >\!\!= \{ d , f \}.</math>  In casting them this way I clearly traded on the ambiguity of &ldquo;-ionized&rdquo; terms to force the issue a bit.  In other words, I used the flexibility that is freely available within their &ldquo;-ionic&rdquo; construals, as processes or as products, to cast discussion and formalization into sundry molds, drawing out the patent energies that are manifested by the active process of discussion and placing them in contrast with the latent inertias that are immanent in the dormant product of formalization.  In this partially arbitrary way, I decided on the one hand to treat discussion in respect of its ongoing process, the only thing that it has any assurance of accomplishing, but I decided on the other hand to treat formalization in respect of its end product, the abstract image or the formal model that constitutes its chief qualification and thus becomes the mark of what it is.

I initially characterized discussion and formalization, in regard to each other, as being an &ldquo;actively instrumental&rdquo; versus a &ldquo;passively objective&rdquo; aspect, component, or &ldquo;face&rdquo; of the inquiry <math>y >\!\!= \{ d , f \}.</math>  In casting them this way I clearly traded on the ambiguity of &ldquo;-ionized&rdquo; terms to force the issue a bit.  In other words, I used the flexibility that is freely available within their &ldquo;-ionic&rdquo; construals, as processes or as products, to cast discussion and formalization into sundry molds, drawing out the patent energies that are manifested by the active process of discussion and placing them in contrast with the latent inertias that are immanent in the dormant product of formalization.  In this partially arbitrary way, I decided on the one hand to treat discussion in respect of its ongoing process, the only thing that it has any assurance of accomplishing, but I decided on the other hand to treat formalization in respect of its end product, the abstract image or the formal model that constitutes its chief qualification and thus becomes the mark of what it is.

By casting inquiry into the form <math>y >\!\!= \{ d , f \},</math> I made it more likely that my development of its self application <math>y \cdot y >\!\!= \{ d , f \}\{ d , f \}</math> would first take up the application of discussion to formalization, <math>f \cdot d,</math> and only later get around to the application of formalization to discussion, <math>d \cdot f,</math> that brings the active side of the formalization process into a greater prominence.  But the bias that I exploited in these readings does not seem at present to be a property of the incipient algebra that would determine the sense of the applications and the decompositions envisioned here.  Thus, if I initially saw a difference between the two presentations <math>\{ d , f \}</math> and <math>\{ f , d \},</math> then it must have been a purely interpretive and not a substantial one, and the task of giving explicit notice to these interpretive distinctions and working out their algebra or calculus yet remains to be carried out in any sort of convincing fashion.

By casting inquiry into the form y >= {d,f}, I made it more likely that my development of its self application, y.y >= {d,f}{d,f}, would first take up the application of discussion to formalization, f.d, and only later get around to the application of formalization to discussion, d.f, that brings the active side of the formalization process into a greater prominence.  But the bias that I exploited in these readings does not seem at present to be a property of the incipient algebra that would determine the sense of the applications and the decompositions envisioned here.  Thus, if I initially saw a difference between the two presentations {d,f} and {f,d}, then it must have been a purely interpretive and not a substantial one, and the task of giving explicit notice to these interpretive distinctions and working out their algebra or calculus yet remains to be carried out in any sort of convincing fashion.

Still, the casting of discussion and formalization as active and inert, respectively, was not entirely out of character with their distinctive natures, since a process that has an end is more naturally suited to be represented by its result than a process that conceivably never ends.  And whereas a "discussion" was allowed to be a form of discourse that does not need to have an end, with the possible exception of itself, a "formalization" was sensed to be a form of discourse that has, needs, seeks, or wants a distinct end, not just any end but a form of product that is preferred to satisfy a general description, and one that most likely resides outside the form of a vacuous vanity that simply refers, in a reflexive but hollow echo, to the entirety of its own proceedings.

Still, the casting of discussion and formalization as active and inert, respectively, was not entirely out of character with their distinctive natures, since a process that has an end is more naturally suited to be represented by its result than a process that conceivably never ends.  And whereas a ''discussion'' was allowed to be a form of discourse that does not need to have an end, with the possible exception of itself, a ''formalization'' was sensed to be a form of discourse that has, needs, seeks, or wants a distinct end, not just any end but a form of product that is preferred to satisfy a general description, and one that most likely resides outside the form of a vacuous vanity that simply refers, in a reflexive but hollow echo, to the entirety of its own proceedings.

In this merely penultimate analysis, and to the extent that the question of ends has been analyzed up to the present, it needs to be noted that more than a bit of ambiguity yet remains.  When one speaks of a form of discourse each of whose instances necessarily has an end, does one mean that the definition of the form requires each instance to have an end, and does one then mean that each valid instance actually achieves its end, or does one only mean that each instance of some empirically given class of discourses actually reaches some end or another?

In this merely penultimate analysis, and to the extent that the question of ends has been analyzed up to the present, it needs to be noted that more than a bit of ambiguity yet remains.  When one speaks of a form of discourse each of whose instances necessarily has an end, does one mean that the definition of the form requires each instance to have an end, and does one then mean that each valid instance actually achieves its end, or does one only mean that each instance of some empirically given class of discourses actually reaches some end or another?

The word "reflection" first entered this discussion in what seemed like a purely incidental and instrumental way, as a part of the definition of a "meditation" as "a discourse intended to express its author's reflections or to guide others in contemplation" (Webster's).  I converted this term to my own use as a name for a particular class of activities, describing the class of "meditations", M, as a brand of "measured" and "motivated" discussions that can serve to mediate formalizations within the realm of discussions at large.  Thus, I borrowed the term for no better reason than that of interposing a middle term between formalized discussions and discussions in general, thereby yielding the relationship F c M c D.

The word "reflection" first entered this discussion in what seemed like a purely incidental and instrumental way, as a part of the definition of a "meditation" as "a discourse intended to express its author's reflections or to guide others in contemplation" (Webster's).  I converted this term to my own use as a name for a particular class of activities, describing the class of "meditations", M, as a brand of "measured" and "motivated" discussions that can serve to mediate formalizations within the realm of discussions at large.  Thus, I borrowed the term for no better reason than that of interposing a middle term between formalized discussions and discussions in general, thereby yielding the relationship F c M c D.