Difference between revisions of "Directory talk:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 1"

MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Friday November 22, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
<div class="nonumtoc">__TOC__</div>
 
<div class="nonumtoc">__TOC__</div>
 +
 +
==Discussion==
  
 
==Work Area==
 
==Work Area==
 
===1.3.===
 
 
====1.3.5. Discussion of Formalization : Specific Objects====
 
 
<pre>
 
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.
 
</pre>
 

Latest revision as of 12:54, 19 April 2012

Discussion

Work Area