Translate

Thursday, 12 January 2017

Step by Step: Categorisation Structures Based on Number of Categories

This is a bit about what I mean this type of a categorization is, not only about how it is structured. 

With no (zero) categories of the type that I mean, there is not any structure to what one deems as how much of worth it. Using no such category/-ies is thereby not reliable; it almost must mean chaos and
lifelessness.

With one such category, there is exactly one form of regulation about what is worth it to which extent. Using at least one category for such judgement is a basis for life, which does not exist without it. As such it cannot be destructive; it must work independently for life. The first category is naturally the most necessary one.

With two such categories, there are two such forms of regulation. Using a second such category is a necessity for deeming against anything. Because it can keep itself separate from the category that supports life itself  -  and thereby couldn't do it!

With three such categories there are three separate forms of judgement.Usage of a third structure for judgement is necessary for judging judgements from the outside. It seems that it thereby provides possibility for cunning about being real about whom to treat nicely and badly. 

With four such categories.there is an added judgement to that. Usage of a forth category provides the possibility of a second opinion about the cunning about whom to treat how that the third category provided. It also provides a realm of two potential divisions into good and bad  -  providing one cannot fix too definitely the order between the categories. That one can because of the possibility of multiplication of two and two into four.

With five categories, it seems that this happens: The above type of second opinion does not provide a basis for a point of view that is clear about why an opinion is what it is. Such basis can be there, it seems though, with a fifth such category. Using that fifth category thereby  - at least so it seems to me  -  adds the dimension of personal judgement to it all. This means that the double standards of the two twos can be overcome, doesn't it?!

With six categories there's a multiplication that seems to result in a realm of combining wanton and unscrupulous division into constructive and destructive judgements with regardful considerate division into that. This means that the third category of the three factor isn't always present. In other words it results, it seems, in a system of double moral.

With seven categories there is again not any more than one factor. A single factor seems to mean at least something of a guarantee against the double standards and thereby confusion, which more than one of them can seemingly mean. Using a seventh category seems to me to involve emphasizing five categories without such double standards.

With eight categories.there are three competing simpler categorizations (of divisions into two categories). With nine categories there are two competing simpler categorizations (of divisions into three categories). The number of competing categorizations involves a none-categorical relationship between the simple categorization structures. Thereby eight, with its three factors relates those factors to one another in a way that spites categorization into three parts  -  while nine with its two factors relates those to each other in a way that spites categorization into two parts. Both the twos that spite three and threes induces consistency of twos and of threes, respectively.

Such consistency is about that the twos and the trees stay separate. But for consistency with outside stuff, with generalization,something else is needed. A logical possibility for such consistency seems to be there in numbering the structures of multiple competing categorizations, by order of simplicity. Then the structure of two twos constitutes the simplest, which should thus be related, I think, to the number one, and what it stands for (according to my rules, as described above). I.e four relates to one. According to the same rules six relates to two, eight to three and nine to four.

Thereby eight and nine both anchor, as I see it, for their consistency onto three and four respectively, which means each of them is for "anchorage" dependent upon something that is is spited by the internal procedures of them, respectively. Because the three that eight anchors to is exactly what it is of direct spite against in the structure of an eight. Similarly, the four that nine anchors to is made up two sets of exactly what is of direct spite against in the structure of a nine!

I believe that using the eight and nine factors mean something like how the structures of our brains' thoughts are organized. Only those thoughts can involve lots of other forms of categorization. But I believe most of those other forms of it are there subordinated the two structures of eight and nine  -  at least to the extent those are into meaning steps and anchorage. I have earlier tried to describe how our brain structures might be built upon those two basic structures.

With ten categories, there is a set of five competing with a set of two categories, i.e. simple minded discrimination competes with personal judgement. The way two factors compete, however, doesn't at all necessarily mean fair play. Instead they complete by destabilizing each another. Using a tenth factor means uniting the trails of two competitive twos in an eight, which leads to, I think, imagination about one's possibilities. ...

With eleven factors there's the destructive capacity of six one-factor-built categorization. This means further uniting the three and the two of the uninclined-for-justice compromise to competition of a six. ...

No comments:

Post a Comment