Line 2,606: |
Line 2,606: |
| The way that reflection, in adjunction to conduct, leads that conduct to a description of itself, not only in the sense of begetting an image but also in the sense of encountering a design, needs itself to have a name. I dub this turn of reflection, through which it converts the conduct of experience into an experience of conduct, by the name “metamorphism”. The way that a reflection of the action is a sign of the action needs to be investigated further, and is pursued through the rest of this work. An apology is due for continuing to harp on this point, but it remains a crucial point for the whole method of reflection, if it is to be a method. | | The way that reflection, in adjunction to conduct, leads that conduct to a description of itself, not only in the sense of begetting an image but also in the sense of encountering a design, needs itself to have a name. I dub this turn of reflection, through which it converts the conduct of experience into an experience of conduct, by the name “metamorphism”. The way that a reflection of the action is a sign of the action needs to be investigated further, and is pursued through the rest of this work. An apology is due for continuing to harp on this point, but it remains a crucial point for the whole method of reflection, if it is to be a method. |
| | | |
− | <pre> | + | {| align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="90%" |
− | "Why, why, why, why, why, why?" the tiger asks itself hour after hour, day after day, year after year, as it treads its endless path behind the bars of its cage.
| + | | |
− | Daniel Quinn, Ishmael, [DQ, 11]
| + | <p>“Why, why, why, why, why, why?” the tiger asks itself hour after hour, day after day, year after year, as it treads its endless path behind the bars of its cage.</p> |
| + | |- |
| + | | align="right" | Daniel Quinn, ''Ishmael'', [DQ, 11] |
| + | |} |
| | | |
− | Returning to the formula of an inquiry into inquiry, y0 = y.y, it is possible to derive a few of its consequences for the character of the operation that is to be called "reflection". In general, a formula like f = g.h 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 “reflection”. 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. | | It cannot analyze the question or elaborate on it. |
| Daniel Quinn, Ishmael, [DQ, 11] | | Daniel Quinn, Ishmael, [DQ, 11] |