Prof.Dr.
RONALD E. CHAVERS
Working Method

BACK | Belonging to the Method

Working Method

The Triadic Method I develop is a Logical Method with its Actual Objects, its internal Logics, Rationality, Actual Structures, Materials and Developing processes and it shows and demonstrates, how we can learn to systematically formalize, structure, systematize and mathematize them. There is no actual system without a Specific Logic and Development History and every formalized symbolic, semiotic, mathematical or scientific logical system must orient itself, reconstruct, construct, formalize, etc. the actual material realities it is representing. This means also that we have to try both, to consider as well as understand empirically something about the actual structure, material forces and realities, as well as the logic and rationality of those objects that we study and observe.

This method also involves 3 different Cultural types:
1. The archaic: primal, shamanistic, fundamental, natural, and introspective;
2. The classical: systematic, well organized, functional, bureaucratic,
Institutional, rational in the sense of intellectually understandable,
Leisure class; Egyptian, Greek- Roman, European, Indian-Asian
3. Modern: folkish, popular, ordinary common sense, working class.
As I said before, as far as logic goes, it includes the Forms of Things, words,
concepts, mythologies, arts, etc., the Formative and Transformative agents
needed to understand the individual and collective factors of or within any
given selected or concrete program or problem situation.

To the systematics of the method of Paedalogics belong also the methods of:
Analysis = differentiation
Synthesis = integration
Dialectics = process development.

Skills are necessary and are the basic foundations of the cultures' existence. By skills I mean not only technical skills, but also dramatic, familial, ancestral, pragmatic, genealogical, creative, cultural, intellectual, symbolic, logical-rational, ordering, constructive-structural, formative, transformative, etc. skills. And in this connection I want to systematically study, test, reconstruct, learn and transform the role, that Belief Systems play in our various social, cultural, linguistic, understanding, conscious, professional and other life worlds. In this connection how have Belief Systems hindered these various skills in the past and present? In all cultures (also in our professional, intellectual, logical and other Belief Systems) belief systems have existed and still exist. Some belief systems are more evident, present, democratic, creative, dogmatic and free, etc. than others.

We need or better said, we have always, at least the last 100,000 years and much longer, used belief systems to orient, picture, learn, study, construct and manifest and perform in, around and about those natural environments, ways, natural objects, that we have encountered in the history of our enculturation in the worlds, that we have lived in. They have helped form our languages, genetic, emotional, habitual worlds, concepts, scientific pictures and patterns of observation and communication.


BACK | TOP

Belonging to the Method I

The procedure is triadic and has the following characteristics:

"The Triadic Method I develop is a Logical Method with its Actual Objects, its internal Logics, Rationality, Actual Structures, Materials and Developing processes and how we can learn or to systematically formalize, structure, systematize and mathematize them. There is no actual system without a Specific Logic and Development History and every formalized symbolic, semiotic, mathematical or scientific logical system must orient itself, reconstruct, construct, formalize, etc. the actual material realities it is representing. This means also that we have to both try to consider as well as understand empirically something about the actual structure, material forces and realities, as well as the logic and rationality of those objects that we study and observe.

The Logics of Developing Systems therefore includes a general Logical Scheme, but this general logical scheme is totally connected and interrelated with the actual objective logic of an actual objective system and we are talking here about the actual objective logic of some empirical-specific system with all of its characteristic and specific realities. The nature of general logics is intellectual and rational in the sense of cognitive, theoretical, epistemological, because it is dealing and referring to the problems of logical construction, the problems of conceptualisation, psychological-mental developments and test situations, educational situations, problems of socialization, conceptualisation, verbalization, communication, problems of systematisation, semiotics and linguistic problems, symbolic representational and problems of mathematical systematics, etc.. And these problems of course ground on and in the problems of empirical, logical problems and realities of actual objects.

If we accept these Rules and their Empirical, also their Rational-Logical and Organizational (mathematical-structural) functions, then we have to consider mathematics and logical rules as something connected with actual behaviour, historical action or activities, human endeavours, skills and creative productivity, along with the whole universe of real things.

By the famous Austrian philosopher, mathematician and logician, Ludwig Wittgenstein, we see a similar intention, where he criticizes the methods of formal logics, formal mathematics and abstract and objectless philosophy. This happens in the later phase of his lifework. Being more and more disillusioned with classical Western philosophy, he turns to archaic and cultural anthropologic traditions, similar to that of Whorf, Cassirer and LÚvi-Strauss, for finding answers to philosophical and psychological questions. In this connection he confronts Western thought with the realities, emotions, the natural, the historical, the attitudes, traditions and the patterns of communication of cultural and natural life. This brings philosophy, science, language in contact with the archaic manners of natural and cultural life, or untempered with the dualisms and formalisms of Western philosophy and science.

In this connection Wittgenstein develops his own picture and game theory, which comes close to what I have developed, in relationship to the hieroglyphic, pictorial and archaic method. Wittgenstein sees the solution to Western philosophy not in the abstractions of formal, axiomatic or deductive methods, but in the realities of natural and cultural life.

For me the science of Forms, Patterns, Pictures, Symbols and their Structures are closely linked with the interdisciplinary history of such, in connection with their traditional archaic, classical and modern developments, without loosing the ancient significance and context, the 'classical' and modern translations and interpretations. I like to see it more as a triadic thing, rather than the one isolated meaning or another. The Triadic interpretation should (this is its goal and meaning) involve a more up-to-date pragmatic-empirical reconstructive, rational-constructive formative understanding and processual-historical transformative, transformational meaning of words, concepts, things of various kinds etc., that we are observing and examining at a present moment in time. Forms only have real meaning in a specific context with their objective empirical, cognitive, understandable processual-historical correlates.
The science of Forms is a systematic Etymological Reconstruction, Construction and Transformation of the various linguistic forms (words, concepts, models, patterns, pictures, symbols, grammatic structures, etc.), plus the Tracing of these various Forms and their earliest recorded occurrences in the various languages and where they found their transmissions from one language to another. This can be done through analysing the various words, concepts, etc., in their various component parts (differentiation, integration and the transformational, processual developments) and through tracing their cognate diffusional developments from their ancestral forms on and how they develop further in other languages.

Everything can be Logically Structured or Formed through given or developed Forms or Structures, that qualify or quantify or relate its objective meanings. Like a certain kind or type of animal: dog, or cat, or tiger, or lion, or elephant, etc.. A certain kind or type of plant, or star, or atom, or cell, or force, etc.. A certain kind or type of social action, a social character, social personage, a social group or peer, or social experience, or social relationship, a social-cultural reality, a social institution of some kind, a social language of some kind or other and so on and so forth.

Following James and M. Weber and their assistants, Logical Forms, Types, Modes, Patterns and Structures help us systematically order reality of all specific and general kinds and natures. They are the forms of our communications with each other; with other cultures, with nature, with the animal worlds, with society, with knowledge, with words, concepts, with mathematical and all other processes that aid us in the process of understanding.

The Logical Forms take on many different characteristics; like Conceptual Formations, Methodic Formations, Linguistic Formations, Mathematical Formations, Creative Formations, etc., etc.. Neither the archaic nor are the Egyptian Forms limited to so-called Sacred Formations like many scientists think.

As such Clark says, the Forms are connected with all "the basic principles of life, nature and society". They "are true for natural phenomena, rituals", for architectural designs and the building of cities, streets, pyramids, agricultural materials, for canals and technology in general, and for developing "systems of writing" as well as for "the whole paraphernalia of the civilization". Also for the development of myths and social norms, etc., etc..

The Forms can be expressed in clear and distinct visual images, which express the canons of objective pragmatic-formative empirical, rational-constructive, reconstructive and developmental representations of typical but also universal ordinary things, experiences and performances. The purpose of the Form-Image is to depict some kind of Transformation process of any one or some thing or things, but it can also concentrate on the Transformation of the Image-Form itself, for example the Image-Form and its Formative action and its Transformative processual development of the same.

Of course every single Form-Image is also totally connected with its individual (but also collective) creator, and his or her or their particular and universal traditions.

Following this whole line of thought, for the study and development of all the aspects of Logical Forms, I call this new but old method of Logical Structuralism: the Science of Morphism. This means making all the Forms more accessible to all kinds of empirical, rational and developmental processes, and this by means of Pictorial Visualization of all Forms. As I tried to make clear in relationship to Descartes, Leibniz or Kant and many others, the Forms in most cultures, philosophies and sciences, also the Ideal Types of Plato and the Formal Logical Type Forms of Aristotle and the metaphysical First Principles, irrespective of their abstract a priori immanent and non-corporal character, have an Anschauungs-potential or Observational-Imaging Character, in relationship to how we learn to observe them empirically and rationally. This means we can systematically, historically and contextually observe, imagine, perceive, develop and conceive them in their various historical contexts and make them understandable, as I have tried to do so in their morphological significance."


Triadic Method as I expressed it in my book the Egyptian Method and the History of Western Philosophy:

"The development and usage of Logical Forms, as I see it, are a thing of Universal Activity, as such they are connected with the Pragmatic-Empirical-Reconstructive, Rational-Constructive-Formative and the Transformational-Historical-Processual Transformative. And they are present consciously, and unconsciously, in the communication and usage of all languages, cultures, sciences, professions and human and other activities. Speaking about the Structural Logics of Universal Form Types, it is important to say, in relationship to the various types and typologies and the various different systems of logical rationalities, that Every Single or Class of logical rationality possesses a variety or multitude of different forms, that have different categories of functions, in relationship to the various sciences, the various thinking processes, in relationship to the specific and general arrangement of various sentences, words, concepts, models, grammatical complexities, etc.. Of course in relationship to their various usages: philosophy, semantic, philologic, etymologic, epistemologic, methodic, literary, historical, artistic, religions and other contexts.

Also the various particular types of logical forms, are being used to Typify a particular language and its development. And they are of course different in relationship to the various different languages. This very particular and specific historical and contextual usage of the various definite forms and how they are specifically used and developed in their specific context of contents, Typifies the various particular meanings, in the active rationalities and explications of the various different languages. This process of the specific-empirical and rational use of the concrete forms used in a specific language, we call its Formative Rational-Constructive Significance. And this is so, as I see it, independent of whether we are talking about ideal logical types, or formal logical types, or archaic logical types, or hieroglyphic logical types, or transcendental logical types, or mechanistic logical types, or existential logical types, etc..

There is also a third aspect of this Triadic Process of Form developments, like the first two aspects, they are different according to the particular development of how they are used in their specific context. This third aspect Hegel calls their Zeit-Geist, the Spirit of Times, in which they are used and carried out, in whichever way they are expressed (religious, social, political, economic, psychological, educational, cultural, scientific, mathematical, aesthetic, moral, etc. etc.), it is called their Transfomative Processual-Historic Transformational Significance.

This triadic Differential but also Integrative and Transformational Processual Significance between Forms, the Formative and the Transformative, is Universal in the Truest sense of the word, because it is Empirical, Rationally Understandable, in the communicative and potentially pragmatic, rationally understanding and historical transformational sense of whatever concrete contextual meaning. It is also Multi-Dimensional, Cross-Cultural, Interdisciplinary, Multi-Spatial, Multi-Formal, (in the sense of multi-form) and Multi-Typical (multi-type). Transformative for me is the historical process that a Form, and its Formative usage undergoes, in the course of its Active Communicative development. This includes both, its personal individual and also its collective usage and development. It is a systematic discovery to observe, first of all that there are many Different Types, but also many different Forms or Patterns, Styles, Models, Gestalts or Pictures, Images of Logic, and secondly that all types, independent of their origin, development, particular usage follow systematically this Universal Pattern.

As such these Universal Patterns refer to all the various activities of human nature, and all the Forms of the Life World to the physical, chemical, organic, psychological, social, economic, political, educational, aesthetical, etc..

After establishing the fact that the triadic relationship between Forms, their Formative relations and their Transformative consequences, we proceed on to demonstrate the pragmatic, natural, rational and processual-historical dialectic relationship between logic and language.

This Triadic Formprocess and its relationship to various concepts, words, sentences-arrangements, models, patterns, grammatical, syntactical, semantic and its general complexities, that we develop to communicate what we mean, experience, observe and understand about all those things we encounter in the universe of common sense, modernity, society, culture, emotions, nature and science, with the ancestors, histories, memories and traditions of cultures, both human, animal, plant cultures, biological or sacred, physical, technical or aesthetic in relationship to the concrete natural and physical world, is our orientation in all those worlds that we live in.
Kroeber calls this our "universal", "systemic", "social", "whole culture" and "style type patterns".
This concept and reality Kroeber calls Patterns, is the same thing I mean when I talk about Forms. For Kroeber and for myself Patterns or Forms, although they are not physical, are psychological, symbolic, semiotic, methodic, etymologic, intellectual, rational or cognitive, and at the same time, they have universal significance in relationship to communicative, scientific and other meanings and their various different significances, as I mentioned it in the above meaning.

"This universal pattern thus boils down to a rough plan of convenience for a preliminary ordering of facts awaiting description or interpretation. No one seems to have developed the idea since it was set forth in 1923, or to have made serious use of it toward deeper understanding. We will therefore pass on to other kinds of patterns.3

Everything we do, that is, all peoples, cultures, families, work or organizational institutions, universities, schools, laboratories and other social institutions, has an effect on how we experience, understand and grow, are connected with the various worlds we live in. And the logical forms or patterns are deeply rooted, both in the pragmatic-empirical, reconstructive, and in the rational-constructive formative and in the processual-historical transformative worlds. So that all the Logical Forms or Patterns everywhere and in all disciplines and in all cultures, have had a universal, as Kroeber calls it, diffusional influence on each other, causing a kind, as the archaic, Egyptian, some Renaissance thinkers and pragmatists thought, an integrative, but differentiating effect on the history and interrelationship of the various logical and linguistic types: archaic, hieroglyphic, formal, ideal and all the other various types throughout the whole world.

"The systemic type of pattern accordingly not only partakes of the quality if a system, but is a specific growth. It originates in one culture, is capable to spread and transplantation to others, and tends strongly to persist once it is established.4

See also Dewy, On Education, p 254. See also A.N. Whiteland, Science and Philosohy. New York 1984, p. 132 See also Jurgen Habermans. The Philosophoical Discourse of Modernity, op id, p 210
"The main value of these formal distinctions of kinds if process is logical: they help us organize a large mass of facts into some sort of preliminary order But as cultures and their parts actually live, thrive, decay and alter, and as they influence one another, these several processes, which in the abstract seem so neat and distinctive, are found to manifest themselves in association and interwoven. All of them are often at word at once, so that the same phenomenon may be seen as an example of two or three of them. This constant interrelation of processes is characteristic of culture. Their segregation has something artificial about it, and is justified chiefly by convenience."5

Meaning, Memory and the study and cultivation of the various forms and patterns and their involvement in our whole social, ritual, cultural or multi-cultural and other realities, can and does have a healing effect on our psychological, scientific, philosophic, spiritual, economic, medical, psycho-somatic and social well-being, as well as the well-being of our natural and ecological environments.

Eliade and later LÚvi-Strauss were both of the conviction, that as far as the forms, patterns symbols and pictures, and the various styles of language were concerned, that there was no real qualitative distinctions between the various styles, be they archaic or so-called 'primitive', classical (hieroglyphic, Greek, Indian, Persian, Chinese, Japanese, Hebraic) or modern, so-called popular, common sense, modernistic, folkloric, etc.. I believe with them, that this is so, but I see not only a Structural Comparative Interwovenness and a Historical-Processual Transformational Interwovennes, as well as a Constructive, Introspective Interwovenness, as I have tempted to demonstrate throughout this book from beginning on.

"The thought we call primitive is found on this demand for order. This is equally true of all thought but it is through the properties common to all thought that we can most easily begin to understand forms of thought which seem very strange to us."6

For me the science of Forms, Patterns, Pictures, Symbols and their Structures are closely linked with the interdisciplinary history of such, in connection with their traditional archaic, classical and modern developments, without loosing the ancient significance and context, the 'classical' and modern translations and interpretations. I like to see it more as a triadic thing, rather than the one isolated meaning or another. The Triadic interpretation should (this is its goal and meaning) involve a more up-to-date pragmatic-empirical, reconstructive, rational-constructive formative understanding and processual-historical transformative, transformational meaning of words, concepts, things of various kinds etc. , as we are observing and examining this at a present moment in time. Forms only have real meaning in a specific context with their objective empirical, cognitive, understandable processual-historical correlates.

The science of Forms is a systematic Etymological Reconstruction, Construction and Transformation of the various linguistic forms (words, concepts, models, patterns, pictures, symbols, grammatical structures, etc.) , plus the Tracing of these various Forms and their earliest recorded occurrences in the various languages and where they found their transmissions from one language to another. This can be done through analyzing the various words, concepts, etc. , in their various component parts (differentiation, integration and the transformational, processual developments) and through tracing their cognate diffusional developments from their ancestral forms on and how they develop further in other languages.7

One of the main foundational totemistic symbols, is the Triadic symbol or model. It is characterized in the symbol of the house or the cosmological unity between Sky, Earth and there interconnections. The central pillar or tent pole or the central post of the house, the roof of the House and the floor which represents the foundation of the house. This is also the unity between the male (roof or sky), the female (floor or earth) and the children. The Triad is a basic symbol of the Complete System (the body, a house, the universe, the family, an atom, a clan, tribe, the supreme deity, a culture, society etc.). The four walls of the house represent the four directions, the north, south, east and west.

This cosmological triadic framework is a mathematical symbolism and framework and a logical structuralism, as a basic unity between the 1, the 2, the 3 and the number 4. It symbolizes the geometric symbols of the line, of the circle, a parallel, the triad or triangle and the square. The circle symbolizes the complete year cycle, the sacred lodge, the community and the universe. In the cosmology the house is mot a static or abstract symbol but a dynamic movement corresponding to the various developing stages of the cosmic process. The various aspects of the house (the roof, floor, walls, the central pole or post, the windows and door etc.), as well as the various work instruments, the kitchen utensils, the various rooms and the location in the house, plus the location of the house in the environment, are meaningful for all transactions in the family. And the family rituals use the various places in respect to the ritual times of the day, month and year and in respect to the various family and cultural traditions and social statuses.

Whorf suggests, and this is the very foundation of my whole new thesis, that these basic totemistic structuralisms, figures, signs, logical and mathematical forms can be the source of development in Western and in other forms of mathematical and logical thinking.

"The WHY of understanding may remain for a long time mysterious; but the HOW or logic of understanding - its background of laws or regularities - is discoverable. It is the grammatical background of our mother tongue, which includes not only our way of constructing proportions but the way we dissect nature and break up the flux of experience into objects and entities to construct propositions about. This fact is important for science, because it means that science CAN have a rational or logical basis even though it be a relativistic one and not Mr. Everyman's natural logic."8

If we accept these Rules and their Empirical, also their Rational-Logical and Organizational (mathematical-structural) functions, then we have to consider mathematics and logical rules as something connected with actual behavior, historical action or activities, human endeavours, skills and creative productivity, along with the whole universe of real things.9

By the famous Austrian philosopher, mathematician and logician, Ludwig Wittgenstein, we see a similar intention, where he criticizes the methods of formal logics, formal mathematics and abstract and objectless philosophy. This happens in the later phase of his lifework. Being more and more disillusioned with classical Western philosophy, he turns to archaic and cultural anthropologic traditions, similar to that of Whorf, Cassirer and LÚvi-Strauss, for finding answers to philosophical and psychological questions. In this connection he confronts Western thought with the realities, emotions, the natural, the historical, the attitudes, traditions and the patterns of communication of cultural and natural life. This brings philosophy, science, language in contact with the archaic manners of natural and cultural life, or untempered with the dualisms and formalisms of Western philosophy and science.
In this connection Wittgenstein develops his own picture and game theory, which comes close to what I have developed, in relationship to the hieroglyphic, pictorial and archaic method. Wittgenstein sees the solution to Western philosophy not in the abstractions of formal, axiomatic or deductive methods, but in the realities of natural and cultural life.
"To arrive at a language suitable for the expression of "propositions", accordingly, it is not enough for us to "make for ourselves pictures of facts." This expressions in our language acquire their specific meanings from the dealings with one another and with the world, not from their inner articulation alone, nor from any essentially "pictorial" character in the utterances themselves. So the writing of the Tractatus had not, after all, completed Wittgenstein's philosophical task. His earlier solution of the "transcendental" problem - that is, his earlier account of the scope and limits of language - had been given in terms of a "picturing" relation which (as he saw now all too clearly) had been at best a helpful metaphor. Now he was faced with the complementary task, of showing how any linguistic expression- whether "pictorial" or not - acquires a linguistic significance, by being given a use in human life. This was the starting point for the characteristic investigations of Wittgenstein's later period. His concern was no longer with the "formal structure" of language or with any supposed similarity of structure between "propositions" and "facts". Men might have special reasons within physics, say, for giving a direct, "pictorial" representation of phenomena; but elsewhere there was less reason to regard the propositions of our language as "pictures of facts". So, from now on, Wittgenstein focused his attention instead on language as behavior: concentrating his analysis on the pragmatic rules that govern the uses of different expressions, in the language games within which those rules are operative, and on the broader forms of life."10


FOOTNOTES - Belonging to the Method I

1  R.T. Rundle Clark, Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt. London, 1978, p. 263f.

2  These quotations were taken from my new book about the Hieroglyphic Method titled, The Development of the Afro-Egyptian Method and the History of Western Philosophy (MS 1998), also the following triadic process, which gives an example how the triadic method as systematic process works.

3  A.L Kroeber, Antropology, Culture Patterns and Processes, San Diego, New York, London, 1963, p. 120.

4  A.C. Kroeber, op, id., p.122., see also A.N. Whitehead, Science and Philosophy,New York, 1984, p.132, also Jurgen Habernas, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, op.id., p.210.

5  A.L.Kroeber, op. id., p.152.

6  Claude Levi-Strauss, The Savage Mind, London, 1981, p.10.

7  See Isaiah Berlin, Vico and Herder. London, 1976, p.169

8  Benjamin Lee Worf, Language, Thought & Reality, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1979, p.239.

9 See Bronislaw Malinowski, A Scientific Theory of Culture. Oxford, 1969, p.47.

10 Allan Janir & Stephen Toulmin, Wittgensteins Vienna, New York, 1973, p.223.

BACK | TOP

Belonging to the Method II

The procedure is triadic and has the following characteristics:

"The Triadic Method I develop is a Logical Method with its Actual Objects, its internal Logics, Rationality, Actual Structures, Materials and Developing processes and how we can learn or to systematically formalize, structure, systematize and mathematize them. There is no actual system without a Specific Logic and Development History and every formalized symbolic, semiotic, mathematical or scientific logical system must orient itself, reconstruct, construct, formalize, etc. the actual material realities it is representing. This means also that we have to both try to consider as well as understand empirically something about the actual structure, material forces and realities, as well as the logic and rationality of those objects that we study and observe.

The Logics of Developing Systems therefore includes a general Logical Scheme, but this general logical scheme is totally connected and interrelated with the actual objective logic of an actual objective system and we are talking here about the actual objective logic of some empirical-specific system with all of its characteristic and specific realities. The nature of general logics is intellectual and rational in the sense of cognitive, theoretical, epistemological, because it is dealing and referring to the problems of logical construction, the problems of conceptualisation, psychological-mental developments and test situations, educational situations, problems of socialization, conceptualisation, verbalization, communication, problems of systematisation, semiotics and linguistic problems, symbolic representational and problems of mathematical systematics, etc.. And these problems of course ground on and in the problems of empirical, logical problems and realities of actual objects.

If we accept these Rules and their Empirical, also their Rational-Logical and Organizational (mathematical-structural) functions, then we have to consider mathematics and logical rules as something connected with actual behaviour, historical action or activities, human endeavours, skills and creative productivity, along with the whole universe of real things.

By the famous Austrian philosopher, mathematician and logician, Ludwig Wittgenstein, we see a similar intention, where he criticizes the methods of formal logics, formal mathematics and abstract and objectless philosophy. This happens in the later phase of his lifework. Being more and more disillusioned with classical Western philosophy, he turns to archaic and cultural anthropologic traditions, similar to that of Whorf, Cassirer and LÚvi-Strauss, for finding answers to philosophical and psychological questions. In this connection he confronts Western thought with the realities, emotions, the natural, the historical, the attitudes, traditions and the patterns of communication of cultural and natural life. This brings philosophy, science, language in contact with the archaic manners of natural and cultural life, or untempered with the dualisms and formalisms of Western philosophy and science.

In this connection Wittgenstein develops his own picture and game theory, which comes close to what I have developed, in relationship to the hieroglyphic, pictorial and archaic method. Wittgenstein sees the solution to Western philosophy not in the abstractions of formal, axiomatic or deductive methods, but in the realities of natural and cultural life.

For me the science of Forms, Patterns, Pictures, Symbols and their Structures are closely linked with the interdisciplinary history of such, in connection with their traditional archaic, classical and modern developments, without loosing the ancient significance and context, the 'classical' and modern translations and interpretations. I like to see it more as a triadic thing, rather than the one isolated meaning or another. The Triadic interpretation should (this is its goal and meaning) involve a more up-to-date pragmatic-empirical reconstructive, rational-constructive formative understanding and processual-historical transformative, transformational meaning of words, concepts, things of various kinds etc., that we are observing and examining at a present moment in time. Forms only have real meaning in a specific context with their objective empirical, cognitive, understandable processual-historical correlates.
The science of Forms is a systematic Etymological Reconstruction, Construction and Transformation of the various linguistic forms (words, concepts, models, patterns, pictures, symbols, grammatic structures, etc.), plus the Tracing of these various Forms and their earliest recorded occurrences in the various languages and where they found their transmissions from one language to another. This can be done through analysing the various words, concepts, etc., in their various component parts (differentiation, integration and the transformational, processual developments) and through tracing their cognate diffusional developments from their ancestral forms on and how they develop further in other languages.

Everything can be Logically Structured or Formed through given or developed Forms or Structures, that qualify or quantify or relate its objective meanings. Like a certain kind or type of animal: dog, or cat, or tiger, or lion, or elephant, etc.. A certain kind or type of plant, or star, or atom, or cell, or force, etc.. A certain kind or type of social action, a social character, social personage, a social group or peer, or social experience, or social relationship, a social-cultural reality, a social institution of some kind, a social language of some kind or other and so on and so forth.

Following James and M. Weber and their assistants, Logical Forms, Types, Modes, Patterns and Structures help us systematically order reality of all specific and general kinds and natures. They are the forms of our communications with each other; with other cultures, with nature, with the animal worlds, with society, with knowledge, with words, concepts, with mathematical and all other processes that aid us in the process of understanding.

The Logical Forms take on many different characteristics; like Conceptual Formations, Methodic Formations, Linguistic Formations, Mathematical Formations, Creative Formations, etc., etc.. Neither the archaic nor are the Egyptian Forms limited to so-called Sacred Formations like many scientists think.

As such Clark says, the Forms are connected with all "the basic principles of life, nature and society". They "are true for natural phenomena, rituals", for architectural designs and the building of cities, streets, pyramids, agricultural materials, for canals and technology in general, and for developing "systems of writing" as well as for "the whole paraphernalia of the civilization". Also for the development of myths and social norms, etc., etc..

The Forms can be expressed in clear and distinct visual images, which express the canons of objective pragmatic-formative empirical, rational-constructive, reconstructive and developmental representations of typical but also universal ordinary things, experiences and performances. The purpose of the Form-Image is to depict some kind of Transformation process of any one or some thing or things, but it can also concentrate on the Transformation of the Image-Form itself, for example the Image-Form and its Formative action and its Transformative processual development of the same.

Of course every single Form-Image is also totally connected with its individual (but also collective) creator, and his or her or their particular and universal traditions.

Following this whole line of thought, for the study and development of all the aspects of Logical Forms, I call this new but old method of Logical Structuralism: the Science of Morphism. This means making all the Forms more accessible to all kinds of empirical, rational and developmental processes, and this by means of Pictorial Visualization of all Forms. As I tried to make clear in relationship to Descartes, Leibniz or Kant and many others, the Forms in most cultures, philosophies and sciences, also the Ideal Types of Plato and the Formal Logical Type Forms of Aristotle and the metaphysical First Principles, irrespective of their abstract a priori immanent and non-corporal character, have an Anschauungs-potential or Observational-Imaging Character, in relationship to how we learn to observe them empirically and rationally. This means we can systematically, historically and contextually observe, imagine, perceive, develop and conceive them in their various historical contexts and make them understandable, as I have tried to do so in their morphological significance."


FOOTNOTES - Belonging to the Method II

3 R.T. Rundle Clark, Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt. London, 1978, p. 263f.

4   These quotations were taken from my new book about the Hieroglyphic Method titled, The Development of the Afro-Egyptian Method and the History of Western Philosophy, Science and the Arts: in Comparison (MS 1998), also the following triadic process, which gives an example how the triadic method as systematic process works.



BACK | TOP | HOME