◄ BACK
This is a work in progress - all rights reserved.
Copyright © 2006-2008 Tony Giovia
CHAPTER 17 - Contextual Relationships v2.0
17.1 – Rules are logical or mathematical processes that identify relationships between or among particular dimensions in any pool of perceivable dimensions. (Definition)
17.2 - Geometric Outlines are composed of dimensions related by a Dominant Rule. (Construction)
17.3 - Contexts are Geometric Outlines composed of dimensions related by a rule. (Construction)
17.4 – The Dominant Rule of a context is its Point of View. (Definition)
17.5 – Complex contexts are composed of one Dominant Rule, also known as a Point of View, and one or more Recessive Rules. (Definition)
a) Each rule defines a level of the complex context. (Construction)
17.6 - Contexts are necessarily unique in any pool of dimensions because the Dominant Rule organizing the context’s dimensions is unique to any particular pool of dimensions. (Definition)
a) Contexts with identical DRs are identities, one and the same, in any particular pool of dimensions. (Construction)
17.7 – Complex contexts are composed of a Dominant Rule and one or more Recessive Rules. (Definition)
a) Complex contexts with identical DRs and RRs in the same pool of perceivable dimensions are identities. (Construction)
17.8 – Recessive Rules are not unique to any particular context. (Definition)
17.9 - Complex contexts with different Dominant Rules may have identical RRs in their structure. (Construction)
17.10 - Recessive Rules in one context may be Dominant Rules in other contexts. (Construction)
17.11 – A First Level relationship is formed when one or more contexts with different Dominant Rules form relationships by directly sharing one or more dimensions. (Definition)
17.12 – Contexts in relationships with other contexts form complex contexts. (Definition)
17.13 – From the Point of View of context “A”, the Dominant Rule of “A” remains unchanged in the formation of complex contexts. (Definition)
17.14 - From the Point of View of context “A”, the Dominant Rules of other contexts in a complex context become Recessive Rules for “A”. (Construction)
17.15 – Second, Third, and Fourth Level relationships are formed between the Dominant Rule and Recessive Rules in complex contexts when dimensions within Recessive Rules (and not shared with the Dominant Rule) form First Level relationships. (Definition)
17.16 - In the case of Second, Third and Fourth Level relationships, the DR indirectly shares the First Level relationships between RRs via the DR’s directly shared dimensions with the RRs. (Construction)
17.17 - Analogy is a logical process whose basic mechanism is used in different degrees by all forms of comparing and contrasting contexts. (Definition)
a) Metaphor
b) Simile
c) Comparison
d) Exemplification
e) Allegories
f) Parables17.18 - Paradoxes and Dilemmas are complex contexts with conflicting Recessive Rules in their structure.
Dimensional bonding is a descriptive term for shared dimensions. Remember we are considering the geometric outline – the physical design – of contexts. When a particular dimension (or context containing multiple dimensions) is shared among multiple contexts, that dimension acts as a physical component in the structure of all participating contents. It may help to visualize a shared dimension or context as a nexus, or as a shared atom – it is the recognizable physical connection among physically joined contexts. The statement “My favorite numbers are one and two.” contains a conjunction of the contexts “one” and “two” via the shared context “numbers”.
Logical and mathematical operators employ shared dimensions when they exclusively use numbers in their arguments, because numbers are composed of a quantity context and a unity context. The shared unity context is an essential feature of the design. The statement “One plus two equals three.” is structurally held together by three shared contexts – the “unity” context, the “quantity” context and the “equals” context.
Logical and mathematical operators employ Dominant Rule “container” contexts when the POV of the context is not a quantity, but a collection of dimensions that share the DR of the context. The statement “Baseball and Football are entertaining sports.” is a mixture of GOs whose composition includes the context “sport” and “entertainment”.
Analogy is a process whose basic mechanism is used by metaphor, simile, comparison, exemplification, allegory, parables and other analogical constructions. Because we are visualizing ideas as physical objects, we will define Analogy in its classical, Platonic sense – analogous entities physically share one or more dimensions. Comparison, metaphor, simile, allegory etc. signify degrees of contextual sharing – for example, a comparison describes a stronger contextual (and dimensional) bond between compared objects than a simile. As you may have guessed, dimensional sharing among Recessive Rules determines the degree of dimensional sharing with the DR. We will be looking more closely at these concepts when we examine the different levels of dimensional sharing.
Paradoxes and Dilemmas are mixtures of contexts held together by a Dominant Rule. Conflicts among the Recessive Rules of these complex contexts create unstable structures. Although the contained contexts appear to be unrelated, they are connected by shared bonds with the DR. In terms of Dimensional Thinking, stronger bonds are explained by an increased quantity of shared GOs.
◄ BACK