Monday, 11 April 2016

When a Number of Categories Can and Can't Reflect an Attitude

With or without regard for what number of subjects or objects someone deals with, the way that person perceives and then conceives his or her environment is, as far as I can tell, very likely to yield to potential categorization into certain numbers of categories.In this blog I am trying to ascertain what such categorization structure of an interpretation, conception or expectation can say about an attitude that the conception can pertain to.

My supposition is that an attitude or belief generally can be thought of as much related to a categorization structure of expectation or potential attitude can be raised questions about. Because, I know, that if one pertains merely to ordinary categories, then it is very true that a person can yield to one, two, three, four - or whatever number - of categories for any observation, without that reflecting much of what that person's attitudes towards the observed are. That is, I feel and believe, like many many others, just part of life's variations, and does not deal with what we are about, but just what number of categories we have at hand.

But: It is not true - at all - that I have ever meant that any categorization that there is to how one perceives and/or conceives an object is relevant for interpretation according to my system of understanding what those categories say about attitudes. It is sort of exactly categorizations that include an aspect of what I call oneness that is what I am about when I yield to interpretations of numbers as indicators of attitudes, and that, to the extent it doesn't, can be defined as categorizations of that all and everything that such oneness stands for. That is, everything imaginable should be part of the notion (or so) that is categorized.

It is thereby not at all categories in that sense when for example a representative of a store talks for example about the different types of articles the store sells. Neither can it ever quite (at the very least not very easily) be that, I think, when someone speaks of the different types of pastimes that this someone might pertain to. Because it is not at all about trying to categorize among what is already categorized from all and everything, i.e. from oneness.

There can be something of the type of categorization that I mean when one feels there isn't anything outside those categories. In that, there is in at least one of the categories a notion of infinity connected to it., so that all and everything  -  imaginable  -  is part of that whole structure. Other categories can sometimes thereby be viewed (more or less easily) as exceptions from unity with all and everything. (I think it's not at all always, however, that the same categories stands for the connection to all and everything. I'm fairly sure of it. Because probably some categorization structures can be inclined to alter their emphasis of that aspect between categories.) Apart from potential connections to infinity also include general categorizations, to be viewed as total as to infinity. Thereby I feel the type of categories I mean can be defined as either connected to infinity or, to the extent they aren't that, as exceptional in not pertaining to it.

Still, the categories should remain categorical in the sense that pertinence to one category implies exclusion from the others no matter what. I mean that what one category stands for has elements of impertinence to both each and every other category per se, but also to whatever the combination of the other categories stands for. Thus, with three categories, the third one stands for having it the exclusiveness between the two others is impertinent, but still to some other exclusiveness from each of them. ... I think this needs to hold true no matter which one of the categories is viewed as the third one.

That quality, by the way, that any category can be viewed as the third one, also should basically pertain to the second and the first one as well. Moreover, in larger numbers it should also pertain to the forth and fifth ones and so on. That is the categories should not in every sense have to be in a specific order. At the same time, though, they should be applicable also to structures of order, such as time order. This type of potential, but  not necessitated, interchangeability of the order within the structure is another criterion for the categorization to fit into my theory about when it can say much about an attitude. 

All in all it is basic and fundamental categorization structures that it is about. It is about fundamental that the structure involves something of all and everything, in at least one category. It is about fundamental and also about basic that the categories are adaptable to there being order (of for example time) or not to them. 

People have reacted to my attempted demarcation of the type of categories I mean. Some, it seems now, have come up with that they could be called exploration categories or so. This I feel is adequate and also that it does describe what I was doing when I first began sensing it all, as described in this later post of mine (which is, however not later than that it too might for all I know also be behind that people have found that name for the type of categories I'm after). I suppose I might change what I call them in this blog too, eventually. ...