i think the part/whole logic is well developed, for example in set theory,
or in systems theory.
this does not mean that ordinary language conforms to formal-logical
distinctions.
your example "partly" = in some measure or degree
but also: "partial" = (a) favoring one thing more than another (b) referring
to a part rather than the whole
"participate" = to take part in something
"particle" = a basic unit of matter, a minute quantity
there is no single meaning of "part*"
as michael says, it depends on the context to which i would add of the
conversation among real people, who coordinate their meanings
klaus krippendorff
gregory bateson term professor for cybernetics, language, and culture
the annenberg school for communication
university of pennsylvania
3620 walnut street
philadelphia, pa 19104.6220
phone: 215.898.7051 (O); 215.545.9356 (H)
fax: 215.898.2024 (O); 215.545.9357 (H)
usa
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Filippo A. Salustri
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 10:51 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: parts, wholes, reflection, etc.
Hi all,
It's clear that there are many, many approaches to the part/whole thing.
Besides the work mentioned by previous posts, there is also all work of
people like Barry Smith, Tony Galton, AG Cohn, Eschenbach, Artale,
Franconi, et al, Lesniewski (who invented 'mereology'), and so on.
My acquaintance with the work in logic and AI assures me that no one has
developed a sensible logic that covers 'parthood' without somehow
disrupting topology - or vice versa.
Also, the different researchers all tend to make certain limiting
assumptions of their domains of interest. In the end, there's 2
perspectives one has to choose from.
1. parthood is axiomatic; ie, you cannot explain why x is a part of y, you
just state it as factual.
2. parthood is derived from some other fundamental/axiomatic characteristic
(perhaps 'connection' - ie, topology)
The difficult is that in conventional parlance, we tend to blend together a
wild assortment of different kinds of parthood, but we do not do so to the
point where the different kinds of parthood blend into an amorphous blob.
This vagueness is further muddied by language artefacts. For example, one
might say "The bicycle is partly steel" which suggests that "steel" is a
part of "bicycle". Do we adopt a linguistic position - ie, we say it that
way so we need a way to represent it that way? Or do we adopt a more
semantically based position - ie, "The bicycle is partly steel" => "The
bicycle has parts that are made of steel" ?
As an engineer, the "semantic approach" works better for me. But as a
designer, I'd also have to say that 'your mileage may vary'.
Cheers.
Fil
--
Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University Tel: 416/979-5000 x7749
350 Victoria St. Fax: 416/979-5265
Toronto, ON email: [log in to unmask]
M5B 2K3 Canada http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|