| Hypercommunication - Crash Courses - Second-order Systems Theory [ Hyper-Library ] [ Hyper-Lexicon ] [ back ] |
|
|
backward - Seite 22 - forward |
What I perceive I can describe. Temporally afterwards I can also perceive my description. And I can observe that other people also make descriptions, so that I can also perceive them as an observer. Later still, I can also describe how my descriptions refer to what. Every observation shows itself in descriptions and I can observe only the description, not the observation itself. Observing and perceiving are in this sense shadows of describing, which I can analytically distinguish from describing (note 1).
Descriptions are statements - as interpreting observer - which assign properties to entities, whereby I define entities exactly and exclusively by the assigned properties and thus distinguish them from other entities (note 2). As an entity I call - as an observer - the totally abstract carrier of the properties, which I distinguish from the rest of his environment and which I can understand as identity by naming it with (proper) names (note 3). With "red", for example, I denote a property, but when I say red, I have not described anything with it. Only when I say that an entity is red, I have made a description and thus inevitably introduced an entity. For example, I can say that a combine harvester or a heater is red. Then I specified the combine or heater and thus introduced it as an entity (about which I first named a determination). Entity in this usage is a formal term, which, by sense, stands for nothing as it stands for everything that I can define by properties in such a way that I can designate it (note 4).
In describing, two aspects of observation come to light, namely differentiation and designation. Observations manifest themselves in specific descriptions in which the functioning of systems serve as explanations. This formulation of course fits perfectly with cases in which explanations are consciously perceived. I will show later how this formulation fits more generally.
|
Consider to what extent descriptions are explanations! |
Give an obvious example of an explanatory description and an example of a description that is not obviously intended to explain something. |
|
Examples:
|
Colloquially I can describe "orally" or "in writing". This abolishes the fact that writing actually means the production of writing, and that any writing can be read aloud - i.e. made oral (note 5). In written form every description is an artifact, which I refer as a symbol to a described thing, to something referenced. This referenced thing is an entity, which of course can be a description..
|
|
backward - Seite 22 - forward |