Changes

Returning to the formula of an inquiry into inquiry, <math>y_0 = y \cdot y,</math> it is possible to derive a few of its consequences for the character of the operation that is to be called &ldquo;reflection&rdquo;.  In general, a formula like <math>f = g \cdot h</math> constitutes a movement of conceptual reorganization, one whose resultant syntactic structure may or may not reflect an objective form of being, that is, an aspect of structure in the being that constitutes its object.  If there is a similarity of structure to be found between the formula and the object, then one has what is called an ''iconic formula'', but this is not always the case, and even this special situation requires the proper interpretation to tell in exactly what respect the form of the sign and the form of the object are alike.  Whatever the case, the role of the formula as a sign should not be confused with the role of the object in reality, no matter how similar their forms may be.

Returning to the formula of an inquiry into inquiry, <math>y_0 = y \cdot y,</math> it is possible to derive a few of its consequences for the character of the operation that is to be called &ldquo;reflection&rdquo;.  In general, a formula like <math>f = g \cdot h</math> constitutes a movement of conceptual reorganization, one whose resultant syntactic structure may or may not reflect an objective form of being, that is, an aspect of structure in the being that constitutes its object.  If there is a similarity of structure to be found between the formula and the object, then one has what is called an ''iconic formula'', but this is not always the case, and even this special situation requires the proper interpretation to tell in exactly what respect the form of the sign and the form of the object are alike.  Whatever the case, the role of the formula as a sign should not be confused with the role of the object in reality, no matter how similar their forms may be.

<pre>

It cannot analyze the question or elaborate on it.

Daniel Quinn, Ishmael, [DQ, 11]

<p>It cannot analyze the question or elaborate on it.</p>

| align="right" | Daniel Quinn, ''Ishmael'', [DQ, 11]

If one reads the form "y.y" according to the convention adopted, where a latently but actively instrumentalized inquiry on the right applies to a patently but patiently objectified inquiry on the left, almost as if they were two distinct agencies, faculties, or processes, then it is clear that an inquiry into inquiry can begin with little more than a nominal object, taking the name of "inquiry" in its sights to yield a clue in name only, while it can reserve all the power of an established capacity for inquiry to conduct its review, of which no account, no prescribed code, nor any catalog of procedure has to be given at the outset of its investigation.

If one reads the form <math>y \cdot y</math> according to the convention adopted, where a latently but actively instrumentalized inquiry on the right applies to a patently but patiently objectified inquiry on the left, almost as if they were two distinct agencies, faculties, or processes, then it is clear that an inquiry into inquiry can begin with little more than a nominal object, taking the name of &ldquo;inquiry&rdquo; in its sights to yield a clue in name only, while it can reserve all the power of an established capacity for inquiry to conduct its review, of which no account, no prescribed code, nor any catalog of procedure has to be given at the outset of its investigation.

If you were somehow able to ask the creature, "Why what?" it would be unable to answer you.

If you were somehow able to ask the creature, "Why what?" it would be unable to answer you.

Daniel Quinn, Ishmael, [DQ, 11]

Daniel Quinn, Ishmael, [DQ, 11]