Glossary

 


A|D|R identity

The only common structure implied in all that is the case is the A|D|R identity. This is prosophy’s basic tenet. A moth as it is chased by a bat is an identity of the bat’s world. Your bathroom mirror, tonight’s image of your face on it, and your manifold self are as many identities of your world. All identities are derived. They all develop – sometimes through a number of passages – from the one originarian, fundamental A|D|R identity, which is sort of a zero sum of all experienced differences.

An identity emerges as a difference – from blatant contradiction to subtle nuance. No difference of sort, no identity. Whatever we experience originates from the concurrence of the arising|deciding|relating seeds. To use vintage philosophical terms, the A|D|R identity is what gets anything to be, the proper ontological factor, the cause for anything to happen. It is originarian because it is presentarian. It never fails to be present and operative when anything takes form. This is why we cannot see it straight or think it suitably. But we experience it coming across in whatever we happen to live.

act

We are used to consider such words as ‘fact’, ‘notion’, ‘sign’, etc. as ele-mentary terms, denoting in a general way the very bricks of everyone’s phenomenic world. This usually harmless belief is inaccurate, though. A word, for instance, is actually an act of wording, a sign an act of signifying, etc. For a fact to come around, a being-to-the-world has to be supposed for whom a particular A|D|R pattern is experienced as if it were a fact. Besides, there’s the usual requirement for a fact to be confirmed and agreed upon. But even in case of a wholly idiotic ‘fact’, something which I’m the only one to be sure of, and concerned with, the world over, I need a factifying act, so to speak, before I can take hold of it as such. Furthermore, I must also forget about my fabrication, if I wish to think of it as a fact in the usual objective meaning of the word. As long as the make up of the fact is on sight the making up is the fact. General biography reasons about acts. Acts find their value (as fact-value, form-value, image-value, and so on) as events in somebody’s life. Seen from a being-to-the-world inner perspective, acts aren’t but molecules of someone’s evenience (q.v.). [top]

agreement

Our existential worlds are the combined result of innumerable acts, which in turn are the outcome of occasional A|D|R blends. Also, there are no standalone worlds, except as imaginary products of our existential worlds. So, how come that ordinary life seems so obviously full of data, facts, forms, meanings, structures, and reliable recurrences? The answer is, by either natural (evolutionary) or sociocultural agreement.
General biography borrows the agreement concept from the latest devel-opments in epistemology. After trying hard to endow a scientist’s research with a solid method granting factual truth as its output, epistemologists have wound up agreeing that the ultimate foundation of shared knowledge is just agreement. Peer-reviewed agreement, if you prefer, but agreement nonetheless.
Prosophy shows that the agreement concept – either within one’s self or between different selves – accounts for basically all formal and factual recurrences in every field, without undermining our native A|D|R liberties. An agreement is valid through my life’s eveniences until I stand by it. As long as I stick to it iteratively, the agreed datum or form tends to disappear. When something intrudes, and I find myself arguing if it makes sense to stand by it any more, an event is produced with its own A|D|R blend. More in Prosophy, Chapter 4. [top]

arising (A)

One of the three co-factors, or seeds (q.v.), of all that is the case for a being-to-the-world. We may come as close as we are allowed to to the arising seed in various ways. If I forget to put my eyeglasses back on after a midday nap, something will likely arise in relation to the glasses-less situation. No matter what I decide the case to be, and how I describe it, something must occur to spur the event (my not seeing clearly enough, my not feeling the usual burden on my nose, my hand mechanically trying to adjust the missing thing, you name it). However, this ‘something’ cannot be identified until it meets its deciding and relating co-factors. Because it spurs the event-producing movement the arising factor can be misguidedly thought of as either objective, subjective, physical, mental, structural, linguistic, etc. depending on your overall philosophical outlook. In fact it can be anything, for instance the deciding or relating aspect of some past event, provided it meets with the two other seeds. [top]

being-to-the-world

A living thing is able to build its own world. Basically, life is defined by the extent of this ability. The result is a being-to-the-world. A being-to-the-world is a collection of more or less differentiated identities put together by an organism. In prosophy, being-to-the-world is an idiom conveying this most basic concept, that nothing is (exists) except as a brew of the arising|deciding|relating seeds.
The conception (D), depiction (R), and appearance (A) co-factors are to-gether expressed by the being-to-the-world phrase, the three sides always combined with each other: D: being to [the world]; R: [being] to [the world]; A: [being to] the world. Man is a form of being-to-the-world that is capable of seeing into its being-to-the-world’s originarian factors.
This kind of universal and necessary truth is far from obscure. In fact, it is plain and simple enough to be experienced through and through by all living beings. The problem is in that it offers no soothing answers, no direct solution to people’s existential questions. The idea of a supreme deity, for instance, was always meant to be a satisfactory substitute. It impressed an acceptable order to what appeared chaotic. Both the idea of the divine and the being-to-the-world concept are as much comprehensive as unattainable in their fullness. People aren’t going to pray their own being-to-the-world, though, it doesn’t offer much solace. Their conduct in face of the A|D|R identity falls back entirely on them. [top]

concept

Humans are capable of self-consciousness. This means that they can represent, review, and edit experience, on the spot and afterward, through constructs mirroring what is going on, or what has been the case, or what one foresees, dreams of, hopes, fears, etc.
Unavoidably, such constructs are themselves products of the being-to-the-world condition, therefore they are A|D|R formations. What’s more, they are often brought into play over again as A|D|R facets of new constructs. This said, I call a concept any mental construct, serving in someone’s evenience, as long as it comes escorted by an apt recollection of its A|D|R origin.
In an overwhelming number of cases an apt recollection is no recollection at all. Nobody needs to remind for every thing, word, or deed that it’s actually a matter of A|D|R current identities. However, prosophy asks for a kind of alertness to be exercised, so as not to reify the products of consciousness and consider as altogether factual what is just actual. [top]

deciding (D)

One of the originarian determinants, or seeds, of all that is the case for a being-to-the-world. Note that there’s no dialectic order to them. Each de-terminant comes into sight the moment it bundles up with the remaining two. Thus, the D seed is not second more than it is first or third in the line. They come in bundle. Yet, while they can never be observed separately, it’s easy to acknowledge their dutiful presence by trying to imagine an act stripped of one of them. Is a D-less act ever viable? Nope. To break the surface, the A seed needs a decision, a taking-charge-of, a taking-into-account, an assessment of sort. Without which it might be anything, from nothing at all to the most relevant incident ever. Conversely, an A-less act would be utterly blank and an R-less one unintelligible. [top]

evenience

A sequence of more or less connected events. Life is a collection of eveniences and a multi-evenience itself. At best, what we may argue about separate acts, let alone about minute A|D|R identities, is kind of reverse-engineered from the flow of evenience. Prosophy tries never to overlook this existential priority.
Evenience can be very fruitful. It originates all worlds, natural and human. Natural evenience produces the variety of species. Each species embodies a bunch of A|D|R identities replicating in typical eveniences that are set in genes and operate in a sustaining habitat. Human eveniences are amazingly more varied, due to transducibility (q.v.). [top]

event

An act considered as part of evenience, a fraction of someone’s evenience. The result of somebody having experienced an A|D|R identity. Events connect in eveniences, the main connecting device being – in humans and their peers, as far as I can imagine – transducibility (q.v.). See also act and evenience. [top]

general biography

Since there are no beings, things, facts, data, forms, structures, etc. except as A|D|R identities, or cluster of identities, produced by a being-to-the-world in evenience, the fundamental science is biography, the accurate de-scription of what is lived.
However, the liberties attached to the originarian seeds are such that it’s impossible to found their knowledge except in general terms. The details of evenience can only be lived once. There’s no hope to gather them the way they are, like meteorologists select and compare their data. So humans are left with two opposite options, which are a) to cover all sort of biographic event in an overall draft, where only the most general functions, the ones encompassing all that is the case, can be properly devised, or b) to try and depict a fictional representation, an artistic rendition of some case or other.
The two options should not overlap, if only to avoid either the overall sketch to appear more detailed than it could ever be, or the fictional rendition to look applicable beyond its local horizon. Philosophy has long indulged itself on both these mistakes. Thus, general biography’s duty isn’t just to try and outline the all-encompassing sketch, but also to see that it doesn’t spread out and blur local diversities. [top]

idea

I call an idea any mental construct pretending to cope with life without an apt recollection of its A|D|R origin, like a moviegoer who, captured by the story, would downright forget his being seated in front of a wide white screen where all sort of film can be played, not just the one he’s watching.
Basically, I use idea as opposite to concept. Any A|D|R identity, or cluster thereof, may be worked out as a concept or an idea. They look the same, but are different in that a concept remembers its native A|D|R pattern, while an idea stops thinking about that. Ideas are restrictive, not being aware of their inner limits. Thanks to such unawareness they are likely to be revered as necessary, universal, sacred, etc. [top]

irreducibility

Irreducibility & transducibility (I & T) are complementary concepts of general biography. They cover the question, What engenders evenience? What happens to the A|D|R seeds on their route from event to event? Or let’s put it this way: How come that from act to act the A|D|R factors seem free to become no matter what (or lie unchanged)? The answer entails the gathering of what is meant by irreducibility, transducibility (q.v.), and & (the & prological concept, q.v.).
The I (irreducibility) component of the I & T concept is there to remember that, no matter how we may loose sight of the A|D|R seeding factors, they are always there. No act will ever be performed without the three of them being together enacted. The A, D, and R factors can never be ousted from or made shrink to zero value.
Sure, they may replicate. In this case, if all three replicate just alike there’s no new event to be experienced, since perfect replication is indiscernible. If just one or two out of three do not change, it’s likely that we pick out only the alteration, overlooking what doesn’t shift. But one seeding factor alone will never turn out an event; it’s always by a gathering of the three that an event is produced. Irreducibility, this primary evidence of general biography, will keep us away from unwittingly forging ideas instead of exposing concepts. [top]

meaning

The debate on meaning has been dominant in 20th century linguistics with undecided results. In prosophy, a meaning is the output of an agreement by which something is exhibited (a stop sign, for example) that is taken by someone (a driver) to stand for something else (a specific obligation). The dot at the end of the sentence has just been taken by the reader to stand for ‘Here’s the end of this sentence’. The reader has taken the meaning for granted, and most probably she hadn’t even registered her granting that particular dot its due meaning.
As the example shows, meanings tend to disappear. The reason being that in a pure meaning the A|D|R co-factors meet just as expected and people are ready to respond accordingly, without even bothering being conscious of the process. It’s indeed reasonable that attention’s resources be given to what is in doubt, unclear, unassigned, etc. As to what is in doubt, there’s no meaning immediately available. It has to be looked for. And what is looked for I call sense (q.v.). [top]

medial – See O|S|M table below.

median – See O|S|M table below.

nexus

As logic requires non-contradictory connections between terms and propositions, so life involves nexus between the A|D|R co-factors (intra-nexus) for an act to form, and between acts (inter-nexus) for an evenience to develop. Actually, two more levels should be considered: the inner nexus governing the getting together, for example, of different objective facets into the objectual ensemble of an act, and the outer nexus assisting the confluence of eveniences in one’s life.
Nexus pay little attention to formal logic. When they do, it’s not going to be for logic’s sake. Ordinary life has to be pragmatic, because many streams of sense and meaning keep flowing together day and night. Strict logic may well result absurd or senseless. So the general form of the prologic nexus is the universal & or | (q.v.). [top]

O|S|M pre-paradigm

The A|D|R seeds and their nexus in the flow of life seem too unpredicta-ble, unaffordable for any plain reasoning. A reflective mind is therefore prone to trim down this apparent disorder, which limits the extent of its powers. In short, reason enforces some basic order onto experience. The philosopher’s typical trick is to forget about having himself enforced that particular order, or paradigm, and consider it, rather candidly, as the true order of things. In everyday life too, we’re likely to simplify the A|D|R intricacies whenever we reflect on what is going on. Most of the times, we overlook the subtle A|D|R shifts leading to a new event. We sketch out what happens in straight lines.
In Western philosophies, too – but this spontaneous reflex has rarely been avoided anytime anywhere – the dominant impulse has been to separate and sort of freeze (or hypostatize, if you want) the A|D|R seeds, so as to make them more manageable, freely available for what idealization was felt as desirable. Hence all sort of local paradigm, where the A|D|R functions are pre-assigned to separate entities usually supervised by a godly principle, be it a mythological Zeus, a monotheistic God, Spinoza’s Substantia, Hegel’s Geist, or Nietzsche’s Wille zur Macht.
Now, it seems to me that all paradigms, however dissimilar, share the tendency to reduce the arising, deciding, and relating seeds, to the categories of object (O), subject (S), and logos or medium (M), respectively, as if what we happen to see, e.g., as an objectity were an element of the originarian, a thing in itself, rather than the fleeting product of a particular A|D|R identity experienced by a being-to-the-world.
I’ve called that widespread, almost unavoidable simplification of the A|D|R complexity the O|S|M pre-paradigm. To be conscious of the vari-ety of paradigms – formally exposed by thinkers or informally thought up by anyone – and of the pre-paradigm hovering on all of them, this is maybe as near as we can get to an overall conception of our A|D|R-dependent being-to-the-world. [top]

objective – See O|S|M table below.

objectual – See O|S|M table below.

originarian – See presentarian.

presentarian

Perhaps the lengthiest quest in philosophy has been devoted to the idea of origin. Why an idea (q.v.)? Isn’t it a legitimate concept? Actually, questions on origin are plentiful – of this universe, matter, light, life, soul, mind, of species, humans, nations, cultures, languages, laws, thoughts, dreams, etc. Moreover, every question begets many answers. But, if everything may be inquired about its origin, the inquiring act is, so to say, more original. It is originarian. The primary originarian factor should not be sought out in the mass of answers, since it had to be already there when the very first origin question came into sight.
Prior to the matter of any query there’s the act of querying. Now, while a matter of fact, being the result of an inquiring act, can be set anywhere in time and space, the act itself has got only the here-and-now to inhabit. Whatever is lived is lived here and now. Thus, the true originarian must also be presentarian. Indeed, we should think as originarian only of what we find, with absolutely no exception, as presentarian.
Being the hotbed not just of all origins but of everything that is the case, the originarian-presentarian will not provide an exclusive answer. It is bound to be all-inclusive, allowing for all possible questions and answers, no matter how far-fetched or short-lived. The originarian-presentarian structure, as prosophy outlines it, is the A|D|R identity (q.v.), provided it is researched as a concept that, to be true to itself, has to grant a sweeping, all-encompassing synopsis of all that happens to happen. [top]

proethics

It’s evident from chronicles and daily news that mankind is equally avail-able to good and evil. General biography shows why. A|D|R connections, in all other species that we know of, are pre-specified. In humans they are absolutely free. Through transducibility (q.v.), humans may assume anything to mean anything to anybody. This original three-rooted freedom, far from being a sin, is their common lot. Unfortunately, supposing the color of an act to be its moral value, human freedom is colorblind. It entails no criterion to tell apart good and evil.
No doubt, people are often considerate, they are law-abiding, they sign fair pacts, battle discrimination, feel compassion, care for values, and so on. Though, to be sure, the opposite is often the case, too. Far from being metaphysical entities, good and evil result like everything else from what we do. They are the output of our acts, an act being the outcome of a discretionary talent, typical of our species, for putting up whatever we happen to be keen on. So there’s much reasonable compromise in human affairs, a lot of goodwill, and dangerous idiocy too, but no inherent justice.
We are all witnesses of an unlimited supply of disparate visions of what has to be done to grant justice – from dying to save other people to dying to murder them. Justice is the farthest outpost of our being-to-the-world. The limit is the principle. Justice has to be added simply because we see that it’s lacking. It occurs as a fourth root (q.v.), the only legitimate idea, the meta-human horizon, something that our original freedom does not encompass, leaving us free to do our best and adopt it nevertheless. [top]

prologic

What is evident about elementary biography – that it cannot be formally studied but in the most general terms – is all the more valid with intra-act and inter-act nexus (q.v.). In the course of evenience, nexus quickly emerge and disappear more or less indifferent to logic (all the way from least indifferent, perfectly attuned to a particular logic, to absolutely anarchic and apparently irrational).
There’s a prosophic reason to that. Logic is attentive to what is already at hand and defined, while in the current of life the sense-to-be is imperative. A logic (there can be many) is a general structure of nexus. In order to logically apply any such structure one needs two classes of pre-defined meanings: the class of what has to be connected (terms or propositions) and the class of connectives (unequivocal functions).
Pre-defined meanings look back to some past experience. What has been seen, felt, sensed, reasoned etc. has accrued a capital of meanings. Humans live on the edge of evenience, though. Therefore meanings are looking for sense, without which life would be meaningless. Life is ambiguous, evasive, shifty, multidimensional, while logic looks for some linear or planar pre-ordained order. In short, logic is just a rational tool, but not always a reasonable one. [top]

prosophy

Simply said, prosophy explores the act of living, or evenience. It examines what everybody go through in any of their acts. In doing so, it also affords a general theory of all that is the case. Understanding life in all-encompassing terms – this has been the aim of much intellectual exertion over the ages, in philosophy, literature, science, art (also in myth, folklore, religion, etc.). So why a new term to name what is already there? Because an elementary, all-including understanding has never be attempted, as far as I know. The variety of opinions has been considered an impediment or at best a first, confused grade of knowledge on the way to some universal, enlightened truth. Yet, universal reason can be very confusing. As Kant noted, enlightenment is a self-assigned category. Philosophy has met its end because it couldn’t afford any more its self-accredited idea of reason.
Until recently, what limited the search in philosophy and adjoining disciplines was a) a too hasty recollection of diversity, which was to be sort of untangled, as soon as possible, in some orderly, manageable unity. Still, diversity in humans is exceedingly deep and deserves a most accurate recollection, if we wish to deliver an all-encompassing overview of our being-to-the-world; b) the limited erotic of consolatory solutions, whereby people are gratified in finding precisely what they are in search of as an answer to their problems. Prosophy offers no consoling answers, no pre-packaged wisdom. It’s an exercise in understanding evenience the way it unfolds, and nothing else.
So what do I mean with ‘prosophical’, as in ‘prosophical art’ or ‘proso¬phical vision’? I mean that a person or cultural product a) shows consciousness of human originarian identity, A|D|R-based, and tries to enhance it; b) cultivates concepts and avoids ideotics, which thrive in A|D|R-uncon¬scious frames of mind; c) knows that all knowledge issues of agreements; d) sees the meaning-&-sense mix in every act; e) appreciates prologic haze in addition to logic neatness; f) admits the fourth root (q.v.) as a crucial addition to human being-to-the-world. [top]

relating (R)

One of the three originarian roots (q.v.) of human evenience and, as far as I see, of every conceivable evenience. Being co-originarian the R seed is never to be seen alone; it only occurs in conjunction with the remaining two. If you try to detach it, you’re likely to trespass into the happy realm of ideas.
To have anything happen you have to associate the arising (A) and decid-ing (D) factors to a symbolic representation (R). A list of R ingredients should include words, of course, and gestures, emblems, icons, faces, shrieks, shouts, silences. Actually, in the making of an act anything may relate about anything else.
The perception of the R co-factor at work in all that is the case has led to a variety of hypostases, from the Pythagorean metaphysics of numbers to Gadamer’s hermeneutics. But the most successful reification of the R seed has long been the idea of eternal Logos (later morphed into historical, dialectic Reason). [top]

roots – See seeds.

seeds

Root and seed are patent metaphors for something that cannot be properly named, since a) to name implies the concurrence of all three seeds and b) the output of their copulation is streaming away in the flow of life. What we are allowed to catch is only an account of it. Each seed is originarian and presentarian, but never by itself. It has to congregate with the remaining two to produce anything. Thus, the concept of arising (A) is separately unattainable. It can’t even said to be a concept properly. Hence an insoluble difficulty that has engendered hordes of ideas.
The A|D|R roots, their basic aspect, can be easily backtracked, anyway, starting from any event. Think of a mental experiment, a meta-inspection of what is going on in any act, notified in such general terms as to cover all acts: whatever is the case, try to figure it out less one of the roots. A thunder off the sky or a flower’s scent with no one, man or beast, to notice it. Or a notice without its something. Or something noticed without a more or less complex language to depict it. No way. There’s always something arising (A), someone registering it (D), by means of some sign (R). That’s why the basic molecule of all that is the case is not the fact, but the act. That’s also why prosophy’s scientia prima isn’t ontology, the study of being, but general biography, the description of being-to-the-world as a three-rooted condition. This most general notion is so obvious, so seemingly unusable and so disturbing that the powers of reason have been recruited to hide it at the back of what reassuring overall visions were locally sought after. [top]

sense

With a human or human-like being-to-the-world, one never knows what might radiate from an A|D|R identity before actually having identified it, which is only possible from a live act. There’s always some apprehension implied. To make sense is to determine, about something, at least one A|D|R synthesis: what is inspected, to whom it makes a case, how is it denoted.
Sense and meaning are often taken as synonymous, while I use them as opposites. An absolute meaning (q.v.) is imperceptible, whereas an abso-lute sense is overwhelming, beyond words. In the typical act they are summoned together. Most of the time, what we experience is an adjust-ment of sense, which is what the act is all about, on a background of continuity, which meanings grant. Thus an event is defined, prosophically, by the sense-&-meaning layout of its A|D|R compound identity. [top]

subjective – See O|S|M table below.

subjectual – See O|S|M table below.

the & concept

& (the ampersand logogram) signals a prologic nexus (q.v.), an ac-tual connection of A|D|R identities occurring in someone’s evenience. By the way, the | in A|D|R is basically an alias for &. An & stands for all sort of linkage, from the simplest logic function to the most jumbled association. The & concept involves the meeting of opposition and sameness, too. It connects irreducibility (q.v.) & transducibility, meaning & sense. No conceivable dialectic is complex enough to manage the web of identities & diversities issu-ing out of the & function. The concept highlights an undecided proportion of ingredients, an undefined mix of coherence & inco-herence, purpose & joke, conflict & harmony… An indetermination that isn’t always due to a lack of knowledge, most of the times being a matter of hazy qualities, indefinite associations, shifting appearances. [top]

the fourth root

What nature does with its millions of species mankind mimics with its billions of acts. A species shows a unique A|D|R pattern, the way any human act does. The ingrained ethos in both natural and human worlds is based on freedom: freedom of invention (or replication) and accord (or conflict). Freedom does not entail fair dealing, though. Nature’s freedom of speciation admits carnivores on top of herbivores; mankind’s freedom of accord admits a continuity of wars. There’s no immediate basis for any particular ethics in our being-to-the-world. Or, if you want, all ethics are equally grounded, from the most compassionate to the wickedest one.
Thus, humans were born ethically naked. More naked, if at all possible, than other animals, because an animal can be aggressive and destructive in its species-specific way only, while humans can be exceedingly inventive. By themselves, they make an entire nature of disasters. Obviously, this remark is valid for the nice side of human behavior, too.
Luckily, the unrestrained freedom of conception, granted by the A|D|R roots’ interaction, is also responsible for our seeing a) the lack of a fourth, ethical root; b) the cause of that deficiency; c) the need for everybody to c1) add – using their freedom of will (freedom of A|D|R expansion) – such an additional root to their being-to-the-world basics, and c2) help other people in finding their way to that same freedom of sight or fourth root. [top]

the premise [that]

Possibly the fundamental link from philosophy to prosophy. Philosophies, religions, sciences, and all other products of human intellect need assertions, forms, rules, symbols, etc. They also need to posit, at their base, an unstated assumption. In saying something like “There’s a cat over there”, “Where did you buy that?”, “What a wonderful day!”, or “A ≡ A”, we always imply that a) there’s an omitted main clause behind what is being said, a premise like “[Here I am, claiming that] There’s a cat over there” and b) if the omitted clause were exposed the sense & meaning mix of the linguistic act would be different. So the routine says to forget about it. There’s a recursion to be avoided, if only to close the event. Communication is ruled by pragmatics. In fact, “Here I am, claiming that there’s a cat over there” would imply one additional premise, like “[You see that] Here I am, claiming that there’s a cat over there”, and so on.
The premise [that] is ubiquitous and to drop it, indeed to forget about it, is the soundest thing to do in most cases. However, to build any general view on its neglect would end in a wholesale misconstruction. Yet, most theories that have ridden the course of history were put up without an extensive reconnaissance of the premise [that]. Which is what prosophy invites to do, first thing. [top]

transducibility

This word (shortened as T in I & T) – meaning literally: “[said of some-thing, its] trait of possibly being shifted into [something else]” – is said of the A|D|R roots. If irreducibility (q.v.) underlines their incidence in every act, transducibility says that they are able to morph into each other.
From act to act, what was part of the A seed may transduce into a facet of the D and/or R seeds, and so on reciprocally. Or, to speak from within the O|S|M pre-paradigm (q.v.), what was objective may transduce into subjective or median, etc.
Transducibility is the powerhouse of human being-to-the-world. It can be heavily limited by doctrine, ignorance, and fear, suspended or set aside by agreement. But it is always there in spite of everything, ready to engender a new event by shuffling seeds and their content. [top]

Index
A|D|R identity
act
agreement
arising (A)
being-to-the-world
concept
deciding (D)
evenience
event
general biography
idea
irreducibility
meaning
medial
median
nexus
O|S|M pre-paradigm
objective
objectual
originarian
presentarian
proethics
prologic
prosophy
relating (R)
roots
seeds
sense
subjective
subjectual
the & concept
the fourth root
the premise [that]
transducibility
O|S|M TableO|S|M Table
Note on the O|S|M tableWith the I & T processes always active it’s impossible for anybody to track the procession of A|D|R many-sided identities incessantly issuing out of her/his being-to-the-world. Our brains are made to let us be to the world, not to meta-live our life as if from elsewhere. Still, in the process we collect a very rich set of samples from all kind of experience and may use it as a database. This is when we become, willfully or not, philosophers, for to order our inner database we need a basic scenario, an overall paradigm. Such a paradigm tends to slow down the incessant motion of A|D|R identities so as to sort them out. Thus, the arising seed, which is accountable for the phenomenon of a world facing us whenever we’re awake, engenders the object as an essential class of reality; the deciding seed, responsible for the appearance of a perceiving and judging mind, produces the subject; the relating seed, which grants a link between object and subject, prompts the medium (once the logos) category.
The O|S|M pre-paradigm (q.v.) has encouraged thousands of local para-digms simply sketched out or richly rendered by poets, prophets, philosophers, leaders, and clerics of all persuasion. Actually, each human being lives by a more or less sophisticated version of the O|S|M pre-paradigm. But what do we mean by sophisticated, in prosophy, since we are bound to include, in our overall vision, all that is the case in everyone’s being-to-the-world? Here’s where the O|S|M table’s terms may help. But it takes some effort to put them at work. First, let’s say again that the being-to-the-world we’re talking about is the one people see through their particular paradigm, which is a version of the O|S|M pre-paradigm. My terms are just tokens. I’m only concerned about the general pattern of awareness in the face of evenience.
Now, a being-to-the-world is a vast, entwined collection of objectities, subjectities, and mediants. They come in clusters, most of the times. Let’s suppose that in someone’s evenience this falling leaf is a) something she’s going to brush off the porch in a moment; b) a thing she expects to make some crunching sound if stepped on; c) a tiny bit of this fall’s foliage… As a mediant, it possibly implies d) an overgrown branch that should be pruned; e) summer being over; f) colder days approaching; g) the terrace view soon opening again on the far-off hills… As a subjectity, maybe it reminds her h) of having herself planted the tree the leaf is falling from; i) of having chanced this frail thing into being; j) her having neglected the pruning, and so on. In short, some O|S|M occurrences compound a given event. All of them are right (or wrong) in their own way. It all depends from the result of their taking part in the event. From a prosophical, all-encompassing viewpoint it might be argued that a lone objectity is at risk of being or becoming an exclusive objectity, an absolute meaning. This risk is often negligible, indeed it’s a plus in case of conventional meanings attached to something that has been purposely introduced to guarantee that specific meaning, as it’s the case with conventional signs.
But, as a general rule, in most matters it seems a good idea to have single objectities brought together in as large an objectuality as possible. Same thing for subjectities and mediants. It’s better for people to gather them into complex, open subjectualities and medialities, so to appreciate the relative import and impact of each of them. This note is not going to discuss the implications of such a general tenet. Suffice to say that anyone of sound mind tries to navigate in life between neat, act-pertinent objectities and complex objectualities. While an objectity as it is grants a manageable meaning, its corresponding objectuality offers alternatives and allows a deeper sense to be looked into. [top]
Published October 21, 2014.
Last revised October 23, 2014.