Message #33852

[Bianca]

Matrix-based judgment differs from the synthetic judgment of Kant by reason of its requirement for distribution (i.e. assignment on the basis of differentiated value) according to the number and nature of the data given, as well as by its need for the objectification of reality, of which it reproduces the immanent order, even if this order derives in its primary instance from the structure of the human psyche. It is not rational, but rather metarational, i.e., it presupposes not an adequate representation of the concepts and objects of sensory experience, but instead a coherence, expressed in symbolic terms, of the internal and external experience of reality. The neutrality of matrix-based judgment, i.e., the mode of objectivity characteristic of its qualitative distributions based on value, differs from the mode of objectivity characteristic of science. The experimental process of science deconstructs reality and reassembles the constituent phenomena according to quantitative criteria. The matrix-based process distributes those phenomena according to qualitative criteria. John West and Jan Toonder observe that only those people "who have never built a cathedral, done a dervish dance, or meditated alone for half an hour deny the possibility of such a qualitative difference." [45] These distributions do not derive from a philosophical consideration of ideas, nor from a scientific type of experiment on definite objects of which the variations are observed. The distributions are made by the mind directly. They appear to consciousness as a consequence of the continual stimulation and psychic structuring by pre-conscious astral impressions.

    The Czech philosopher and pedagogue Jan Komenský (1592-1670), known by the Latin form of his name, Comenius, developed a methodological framework for describing reality which present certain similarities with Peirce's abstractive observation and my own concept of matrix-based thought. By means of what Comenius calls syncrisis, a sort of global process of analyzing reality, it becomes possible to apprehend reality which cannot be directly observed by means of examining the reality which is apparent to observation, provided that one can distinguish at the source of both the same "archetypes."

This synthetic critical method opposes the tendency toward the atomization of knowledge and the development of excessive specialization. It does the same for matrix-based thought, which orders multiplicity through the use of provisional regroupings.

The function of value distribution takes on greater importance than the present and contingent representation made of the object under examination. Archetypes are the parameters or poles for the process of value distribution.

 It is not in the nature of matrix-based thought to produce taxonomies in the form of catalogues, inventories or classifications. Instead, it insists on the necessity of distributing values in a manner consonant with its synchronic, diachronic modalities. It does not refer solely to the actual state of the perceived reality, but also refers to the precession of that reality.

As a result, its distinctions are rooted in a twofold dimensionality, present and atemporal, of the reality in question.