On the problem with conceptualization (and cladists’ and particle physicists’ misunderstanding of it)

The problem with conceptualization (ie, classification) is that it slices what it discusses in levels, whereof every level is orthogonal to the levels below and above it. For example, if we distinguish both (1) forests of fir from forests of non-fir and (2) coniferous forests from non-coniferous forests, then a coniferous forest consisting of 50% fir and 50% pine is both a forest of fir and a forest of non-fir at the same time, ie, is ambiguous between these two kinds of forests. The distinction (1) is thus orthogonal to distinction (2). Similarly, there is an orthogonal level to (1) below it and an orthogonal level to (2) above it.

However, the fact that this alternating orthogonal relation is infinite means that the two kinds of orthogonal levels (according to axiomatic set theory) are just as many (ie, have a one-to-one correspondence), and thus that every single level also must be orthogonal to itself. It, in turn, means that conceptualization is inherently contradictory, or ultimately contradictory as Bertrand Russell expressed it. We simply can’t conceptualize what we discuss consistently.

If we don’t understand this fact, then we may instead think (believe) that we can conceptualize what we discuss consistently, and may then search for this illusory conceptualization in a conception that we search for the truth about what we discuss, as cladists and particle physicists presently do. Such a search is thus in vain, because such a truth is actually a contradiction.

The Swedish natural scientist Carl von Linné understood this problem and provided a solution that avoids this contradiction (ie, the Linnean orthogonal system of classification). Today, however, people that don’t understand the problem (ie, cladists) press to return to the contradiction in a conception that the issue is about acknowledging evolution or not, which actually is a completely different issue.

The fundamental question is if a majority of humanity will ever understand this problem. If they will, then a majority of humanity will come to speaking terms on a common platform, but if not, then humanity is is doomed to an eternal battle between those who understand and those who do not understand (as those who do not understand is condemned to an eternal battle with the others who do not understand).


One response to “On the problem with conceptualization (and cladists’ and particle physicists’ misunderstanding of it)

  1. I tend toward the pessemistic view that the majority will not undetstand tjis. — but more so will never care. But reality may indeed manifest or otherwise inform what reality is regardless of whether most people recognize it or not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s