Substance/System/Structure

[Oblimo]

Do you know why Armour, Nabisco, Kelloggs and Kraft make sure their food is safe and contaminant free? Because they know they'll get the pants sued off them if they don't

The problem with leaving everything to tort law is that the tort has to happen first. Before someone actually dies, the threat of a tort does not promote safe behavior. It promotes risk management, as you imply.

and even if they can afford the damage awards, their business will take a monstrous hit if the public loses faith in their brands.

Lawsuits are private, often settled out of court (or with a minimal court record) with non-disclosure clauses. How would the public find out about them?

The rule of law is is a prerequisite for a just society, it is not the sole condition that is required. Just laws that prohibit fraud and coercion are also required. None of that, however, is a warrant and a brief for nanny statists to substitute poltical society for civil society at every turn.

 

[amicus]

Nah, Gauche is clever, funny, mostly civil (maybe always civil, I'm not a Gauche expert), and doesn't take himself too seriously (which does not mean he doesn't take his ideas seriously.) (Misguided as they may be. )
Plus Gauche never sneers at his adversaries or uses illegitimate rhetorical devices, which sadly is not the case with certain others on this and related threads. (Wry humor is not only legit but delightful in my book.)

So I won't be chewing on Gauche.

Well said, but I rather think that is Gauche's loss...smiles


amicus...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The problem with leaving everything to tort law is that the tort has to happen first. Before someone actually dies, the threat of a tort does not promote safe behavior. It promotes risk management, as you imply.

Yes? And that's bad because - why is that bad? Risk management is the best one can do in life. Risk-free life is fantasy of utopians, not a possible state of existance. It certainly won't be brought about by government inspection regimes - these are mostly about allowing politicians to pretend that they're "doing something" when one of lifes inevitable tragedies hits the headlines.

Lawsuits are private, often settled out of court (or with a minimal court record) with non-disclosure clauses. How would the public find out about them?

Lawsuits are not only "enforcement" mechanism. One bad news story about bugs in the cereal are all it takes to wreck a brand - and the capitalists know it.

 

[Oblimo]

You took that way out of context, and none too politely. I am not certain who will read you, but good luck. As for getting hit up by the likes of you. I would ignore your kind in a bar, and so would my friends, who are much better looking than me. You are the guy we use for the 60 cover charge- not the guy we go with when we get in to the bar.

A hit, a palpable hit.

 

[Oblimo]

Yes? And that's bad because - why is that bad?

Because then the only safety measures taken are those where the cost of implementing the safety measure are less than the (cost of litigation) x (risk of product failing without the safety measure).

Risk management is the best one can do in life.

I had the impression you were against utilitarianism and were unwilling to assign a dollar value to an individual's happiness.

Lawsuits are not only "enforcement" mechanism. One bad news story about bugs in the cereal are all it takes to wreck a brand - and the capitalists know it.

Where would the press get its information?

 

[amicus]

Oblimo is up against the ropes and Roxanne is about to administer the Coup de Grace....oh, hurry hurry!

 

[Oblimo]

Oblimo is up against the ropes and Roxanne is about to administer the Coup de Grace....oh, hurry hurry!

Amicus, I enjoy discussing economic policy and ethics with Roxanne. She is articulate and succinct. Even though we have disagreeing premises in those two subject areas, I still consider her a friend who is a lot of fun to talk to.

You see, I think it's possible to disagree and still be friends, even Randians. After all, I married one.

 

[amicus]

Well, good golly ms molly, the old amicus is almost without words...you married one? Lucky you.

I said almost without words...not quite.

The unwritten portion of your post, why you can be friends with Roxanne...left out why you could not with Amicus.

I suggest that is because I am deadly serious about the inherent evil in those who express a philosophy or economic system that advocates the use of force to fulfill its ends.

If you can speak it, you can do it. Thus I feel I must oppose all who threaten the use of force through their advocacies.

I am not on this forum to make friends, rather to express my support for the concepts of human freedom and liberty, it is about all I can do anymore, my active days of confrontational behavior are behind me.

Still...I do appreciate this post and I might add it confirms my concept of opposites attracting and pleases me to no end.


amicus...

 

[Oblimo]

left out why you could not with Amicus.

I could, if you would treat me like one. Oh, and did not refer to yourself in the third person.

I suggest that is because I am deadly serious about the inherent evil in those who express a philosophy or economic system that advocates the use of force to fulfill its ends.

If you can speak it, you can do it. Thus I feel I must oppose all who threaten the use of force through their advocacies.

I am not on this forum to make friends, rather to express my support for the concepts of human freedom and liberty, it is about all I can do anymore, my active days of confrontational behavior are behind me.

Let me get this straight. In your deadly seriousness, intending to make no friends, you have come here to express your support for the concepts of human liberty and to oppose all who threaten the use of force...

...on a bulletin board on the Internet for amateur and professional authors of pornography.

Shine on, you crazy diamond.

 

[past_perfect]

My apologies for not participating or commenting on anything for the past days, but I have been rather busy - with what will become (painfully) obvious pretty soon.

I got a friend to help me with an outline for an introduction to structural ontology (or better ontology of structure). We had that outline almost finished (in German) when we deemed it useful and necessary to test its comprehensiveness on another innocent friend (mathematician), to see whether he could follow our line of reasoning, since he himself had not been exposed to Rombach before. We failed miserably - part of which being due to an amount of condensation and generalisation which just made the whole thing fuzzy and unclear. I then came up with the idea to follow the structure of the original book and use at least part of the roll-out of definitions and examples by Rombach himself.

You will see the first quarter of that attempt in my next posts. In other words, you will get an abridged version of that book. Abridged must mean by definition not as succinct and elaborate as the original, however, I took great pains to be as close as possible to his original work, which stretches the limits of my personal command of the English language to its outer confines. I am still not happy with the result - but it should provide a better insight than the befuddled are partially incorrect previous account, especially since my own understanding and recollection of his approach merged with my own until they became not only indistinguishable but also fuzzy. For instance I used "elements" in some of my explanations - that is something he avoided for a good reason.

I reached the point where I have to stop and do something else, like watching telly, get pissed or both - in other words, I don't want to read, translate or even think about another word today. I am sure there will be a lot of questions, which I will try to answer before posting the second part (when that is done that is).
I still have the vain hope that you might enjoy reading this.....

One more thing: I included the German original terms for those of you who understand German and would appreciate if they could offer a better translation where necessary. Thanks

 

[past_perfect]

Rombach distinguishes three different phases or constituents of structure:

1. The constituents of structure (Strukturverfassung)
2. The dynamic of structure (Strukturdynamik)
3. The genesis of structure (Strukturgenese)
And adds:
4. The combinatorics of structure (Strukturkombinatorik)


The constituents of structure

1) Functionality and relationality (Funktionalität und Relationalität)
The item (das Moment – item is not an accurate translation, neither would be momentum, as the German word includes attributes of both) is a constituent of structure – as opposed to an element, it is the precise definition of relation, so it is not a definition of a “thing” but a form (although form in current definitions would by slightly misleading, since item does not include the oppositeness of form and content). The relation of one item to another is called function. In order to understand functionality properly, we’d have to break it down to its individual constituents:

a) Being in aluid (or the other) (Sein im andern)

Something functional differs from something substantial thusly: it has its being in the other, whereas substance has being in itself. Substance is initially what it is by itself (per se) and then what it is in relation to the other, which are its attributes (accidens). The attributes are being governed by substance but they do not exhaust it – especially “essence” is not an attribute, which is changeable, but its factual regent.
In a functional system each item does not have being in itself, but is the embodiment of its effect on the other(s). An ineffectual function is no function at all. However, you cannot delimit “effect” too narrow, as a non-effect may still be a valid function. For example, a switch in a binary system has the “on” and “off” mode. The “off” mode is still a valid “on” effect in this system. Function always encompasses a certain element of action, whereby inaction can be an action in itself. However, effect is just one type of functionality, dependence on a variable another (mathematically). A common denominator of functionality is that of definiteness, which can only be possible in multitude or diversity.

b) Inter-conditionality (Wechselbedingtheit)

Functions are appearing in such an inter-conditionality that each function correlates to a contra-function (Gegenfunktion). Function is the correlation of contra-function, contra-function the correlation of function. They are ontologically the same, just representative of whichever side you are looking at – interdependence and interaction.
The inter-conditionality of an item is even more primary than the item itself, as they represent the depiction of relations – as so far as they are not viewed in themselves, but in relation to other relations.

c) Legality (Gesetzmäßigkeit)

The totality of a functional system has to adhere to a specific set of rules. Without an underlying principle inter-conditionality cannot exist or be constituted by a set of random events.

d) Radical Function

Function has been first introduced in systems. Although inter-conditionality was being included, it did not mean inter-conditionality between items, but between elements. A mesh of functionalities between fixed elements is what we call a system – a structure is apparent when the primordiality of function is thought so radical, that all that remains are the relations of relations. A machine is a system, where interdependence and interaction between elements constitute function. An example for structure would be a work of art, where each item stands in inter-conditionality to each other item.

 

[past_perfect]

2) The fundamental idea of the identity of the total with each individual item

a) Identity of items

Everything is included in all, there is nothing that would not be effective in any direction. Because of the simultaneousness of inter-conditionality each change in an item would lead to an immediate change in all neighbouring items. Each item is attuned to each neighbouring item in such a fashion, that nothing can be found in an item, that does not pertain to this attunement. The item itself is being defined by the constellation of its neighbouring items – in a way it is their negative. An item cannot be depicted differently than by the depiction of its neighbouring items – therefore constituting the identity of content, the functional totality of all neighbouring items. The functional neighbourhood of an item within a structure is the totality of the structure.

b) Identity with the total

With understanding that the functional item does not contain anything else but its relations to the neighbouring items, you can understand that this cascades through the total in its entirety.
There is a seamless determination of each item through those in which it stands in relation to. A function is properly defined, when the totality of the functional constellation is defined. The determination of an individual item is identical with the determination of the whole.
If you think this through coming from relationships and functionality of things, you would arrive at the conclusion that if a single part of the totality is missing, it would be incomplete. But that is - ontologically speaking - rubbish. If one item of the total disappears, either the total disappears or is being transformed into another total. Therefore, you cannot speak of part and total in this instance, it is one and the same - identity.

 

[NoJo]

Strukturkombinatorik

Ah, what a melodious language is German...

 

[past_perfect]

3) Concretion (Konkretion) as indicative of structure

a) Constellation

In a structure the meaning, sense and reality of an item is being determined solely by the relation it has with close and distant items, whereby the “closeness” is part of a relation already, which leads to the strange effect that items in the structure don’t really have “distance” but identity.
This is just possible in the moment something becomes concrete. In an earlier example we showed this using a pause or silence in speech. The meaning, sense and relative importance of the pause can just be deduced in the context of the entire speech, or the moment of concretion, where the constellation becomes evident.

b) Tension (Spannung)

If you think of a position of an item within a total, you would have to assume a set of coordinates. However, in a structure these are just being determined by their relations. Tension is one of three structural categories, that describe the potential of change of those relations, the other being displacement and de-tension. Any fixation of an item would be equivalent to the absence of tension, displacement or de-tension.
Planning never leads to concretion but only to realisation. The realisation is not important for the plan (but perhaps for the designer). Concretion means (f)actuality, the determination of the concrete by means of the concrete.

c) Boundlessness (Grenzenlosigkeit)

Structures can neither be defined by a structural law (from above) nor a structural background (from outside). Structures form through the concretion of concrete relations. The adequate apprehension of the concrete is recursive. To approach a border would mean to overtake a process and evaluate it from outside. That is a system, with clear defined borders, a structure is not unlimited but boundless, which is one of its paradoxical qualities.

d) Forms of concretion

In the ontology of structure, we are not dealing with something that has reality, but with something that is reality, in the ontology of realisation it would be vice versa. Realisation would mean a possibility or potential becoming a reality, which then again opens a new possibility and so forth, as obverse to concretion, which deals with what is already in existence.
The thing, if it is a structure, demands. Nothing else does. So there is nothing coming from the outside. This is the deeper meaning of relevance, the increased demands of modern living. Certainties like “general standards”, “general norms” and “general demands” have lost their bindingness. Some people feel that this is the destruction of all personal liability. In reality this is not the case, but just opening up avenues for the structural interpretation of what is really there, which has to be understood by its own relevance, its own necessities and demands. The own relevance is not less but more demanding than “the norm” – “the norm” is easy to be found, “the own” isn’t. So it is not the destruction of the normative but a reduction.
The complete reduction does not aim at universality but concretion. It means that ethical human behaviour is not independent from concrete goals and conditions of life. Whereas “formalism of ethics” attempts to abstract from what the individual does, where he lives as this or that, the anthropology of concretion demands that he finds a life structure which balances out each and every detail in order to lead a fulfilled life – whereby it should be obvious that this means something completely different for each and everyone.

e) Density (Dichte)

A system is always put into empty space. It needs an antecedent openness to divide positions. Structure doesn’t assume open space. It unfolds in assuming space for its items. Each structure has its own space. Where the essence of the diverse is the same, because of its diversity, we are talking about structure. The diversity is the space or medium, from which the structure unfolds. A good example is a poem. A poem creates its own language. Its words aren’t inlaid in a medium of a given language, but stake out their own grounds of expression through their constellation, thereby defining their meaning within this medium. A poem doesn’t have language, it is language. That is irrespective the fact, that it is using a common language. It is just availing itself of the language, cleansing and elevating it until it becomes its own. In a fashion it becomes language that speaks. A poem is not “communication”. It does not contain information. The poem is itself; concretion is the precision of the constellating language; precision is the relevance.
If there is no medium, there is no room for comparison. Structure is never “a” structure, it is always “the” structure. A poem is never a poem, it is always the poem. It’s uniqueness is its index. You can recognize a structure if it doesn’t compare with anything else.

f) Lawlessness of structure (Gesetzlosigkeit der Struktur)

A system is being defined by its own law, that applies as the one, only and consistent law within that system. Where there are more irreducible basic laws, there are several systems present, that do not systematically interact. Law and system are convertible – where there is the one, then there is the other. If the law changes, the system changes. A change within a system means it is being replaced by another. As the elements of the system have their being outside the system, thus has the law its place outside of it. Development and growth within a system are just possible if they pertain to the law itself and thereby obviate a fundamental adherence to legality.

This doesn’t apply to a structure. The structure is its own law. As you cannot speak of elements in a structure, you cannot posit an outside law that governs it. The relations of the items are being determined by the relations of the items. It is a constant flux – the flux does not only keep details in motion but also the organizing principle of the functional coherence of the items. If you can talk about a law in a structure at all, it has to be seen under this aspect of variability. A variable law isn’t really a law in the strict sense, therefore we could only assign it in a figurative sense. Its validity is neither objective nor does it stretch beyond a cross section of time and can therefore only be used as an analytical tool or help for interpretation.

 

[past_perfect]

4) Self-relevance and self-criticism (Eigenmaßstäblichkeit und Selbstkritik)

Systems presuppose an open area, structures open up their own dimensions. The structure designs the dimension, in which it is sensible – thus dimension becomes the total of relevance that legitimises and regulates its unfolding. Dimension is the inherent horizon of comparison, in which it confronts itself with its own possibilities and requirements. Another horizon of comparison would be external and its legitimacy could therefore be doubted. In order to make an external horizon appear legitimate it would have to be articulated within the horizon of autonomy – in other words it would have to be the articulation of the self-horizon. The self-horizon is called dimension. All horizons have to be reduced to self-horizons in the end.
The connection between dimension of structure and structure is order (Ordnung). Structures are only possible within order; order is just where there is structure. Order means: the structure within its world. In this fashion we speak of order of power, order of poesy, order of profession and so forth.

a) Field and environment (Feld und Umfeld)

In a strict sense of functionality the items and the space between the items dissipates. The distance between items is the way in which they define their relations. An area in which the items are being defined by their positions or “the in between” is a field. A field is therefore a category of structure.
Let me use the former example of a poem again to demonstrate. The structure opens up a space (or field) in which it covers the entire field by its functionality and relation, still in an environment of language – although it covers and completely uses the field it opened, the field and environment are not identical.

b) Exclusivity (Ausschließlichkeit)

If the environment of a structure is somehow governed by the order of the structure itself, everything which can form a relation with it becomes part of the structure itself. It is the relation to itself. To the structure belongs, what belongs to this self-relation.
Therefore exclusivity becomes a constituent of structure. Where there are structures, exclusion of that which doesn’t belong to the structure occurs. That does not only apply to the inside of the structure but in the same way to the outside. Or formulated the other way round: Wherever there are structures, inclusions occur. They unfold within their given environment, and just in the way they are unfolding, they are structuring themselves.

c) Self-order (Eigenordnung)

As each structure represents an entire order, there is no option for a comparison between structures. A comparison connects the diverse under the aspects of an external order. Aspects of an external order could be found in a genus or generic term. Therefore there cannot be a genus for structures (universalia). Each structure develops an order. This order includes the structure and “anything else”. With the order, the structure confronts the extent of its strangeness, provocation and pretension it attempts to master. Structure is just structure where it confronts. Order is a term and instrument of correction, for the structure itself or a structural theory, which is just balanced if it has implemented that instrument with all due consequence. Correction is two-fold. Its first aspect is the correction of the structure and the second the correction of the correction. In self-correction the structure returns back to itself after reaching out. In this “reaching out” it either stands the test or proves a failure. The crisis between probation and failure is the fluent measure under which self-correction occurs.
This shows that self-constitution is just possible with self-correction.

 

[elsol]

A full 90 percents of music, art and films seen around the world...are made in Hollywood and the music capitols of the US, listen to a radio, watch tv anywhere in the world and the yankee dollah speaks forth.

Please present your statistical evidence for that statement.

Specifically... I want to the see the 90 percent validated.

 

[past_perfect]

Ah, what a melodious language is German...

You would think otherwise when listening to German "Schlagers", which is pretty much the worst anyone could have done to music.

 

[NoJo]

Please present your statistical evidence for that statement.

Specifically... I want to the see the 90 percent validated.

Yeah, I thought Bollywood was bigger

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[cantdog]

Yeah, I thought Bollywood was bigger

'Course it is. That doesn't stop parochial Americans from making claims out of thin air. Have a biscuit and some tea, and just shake your head when they do it. They're young.

 

[amicus]

elsol]Please present your statistical evidence for that statement.

Specifically... I want to the see the 90 percent validated.[/[/I]QUOTE]


~~~~

Get your own box of statistics, Elsol, don't ask me to convince you, I don't give a damn, if you think I am wrong, prove it.

amicus...

 

[CharleyH]

elsol]Please present your statistical evidence for that statement.

Specifically... I want to the see the 90 percent validated.[/[/I]QUOTE]


~~~~

Get your own box of statistics, Elsol, don't ask me to convince you, I don't give a damn, if you think I am wrong, prove it.

amicus...

LOL - We might ask the same of you, Mr. Amicus?

 

[amicus]

You will find, Charley, if you do a five minute google search, that my assertions are always within a few percentage points of being accurate.

Not only that, but the basis of my assertions are usually common knowledge, available to all but the most jaudiced by personal prejudice.

amicus...

 

[CharleyH]

You will find, Charley, if you do a five minute google search, that my assertions are always within a few percentage points of being accurate.

Not only that, but the basis of my assertions are usually common knowledge, available to all but the most jaudiced by personal prejudice.

amicus...

You say a lot my friend, but need to back up your statements. Why should I research what you tell me if you are so certain of it? Should you not prove you right?I certainly can prove me right in any argument looking it up on Google or Wikipedia

As for your common knowledge, Ami? (Dig and goad ) YEP.