Configuration of question-pairs

Now as the Ultimate Cognitive Strange Attractor (Part #5)

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

---

Multiple WH-questions: Use of space-time as a continuum is a highly significant pairing for fundamental physics, together with the related understanding it offers of world lines. This suggests the value of pairing where-when and the other WH-questions. Literature of some relevance considers "multiple WH-questions" within the same phrase (Catherine Rudin, On Multiple Questions and Multiple WH-fronting, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 1988; Marina Stoyanova, The Typology of Multiple WH-questions and Language Variation).

As discussed in the main paper, world lines may be understood as having personal experiential implications, suggesting that question-pairs are potentially indicative of their cognitive implications and "feel". Within one's own world, such "lines" might fruitfully be understood as associations and correspondences by which imagination is transported "globally. With any reference to "capturing the imagination", the imagination is then usefully understood to be captured by (complex bundles) of such world lines.

So paired, the the 7 WH-questions give rise to the 42 pairs in the following table. These are reduced to 21, if (for example) when-where and where-when are treated as a single pair. The 21 are then in the portion of the table beneath the diagonal below).

Enabling question-pairs in feeling alive
	when?	where?	which?	how?	what?	who?	why?
when?	--
where?		--
which?			--
how?				--
what?					--
who?						--
why?							--

The set of 21 pairs provides a context, perhaps to be understood as a strange form of cognitive container -- a dynamic frame for the sense of feeling alive "now" through the active, moment-by-moment engagement with these questions. As such they offer an immediate challenge to any definitive answer implying closure, as highlighted by the Sanskrit adage Neti Neti -- not this, not that.

The resulting dynamic could be construed as a form of "science" based on questioning rather than one preoccupied with the closure of answering. This is perhaps to be understood as creative ignorance ("nescience"), following the style of apophatic discourse with its particular implications for identity (Being What You Want: problematic kataphatic identity vs. potential of apophatic identity? 2008).

Configurative container: The nature of the container is suggested by the following configuration.

Suggestive configuration of 21 question-pairs enabling feeling alive now (with tentative indication of correspondences to associated cognitive catastrophes from the table above, with the "umbilic" forms tentatively positioned at the top)

Uncertainty implicit in question pairing: The implication of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle have long been accepted with respect to a fundamental property of reality as framed by quantum systems, however this may be confused with arguments relating to observation of that reality.The principle relates to the uncertainty of knowledge of position in space and time -- knowledge of one rendering uncertain (to some degree) any precise knowledge of the other.

Having associated the question-pair where-when with space-time, there is a case for recognizing that the principle applies in some meaure with respect to questions relating to the dimension with which the pair is associated. The argument may then be applied to the other dimensions with which the other question-pairs are associated -- as presented schematically above. Some form of "uncertainty principle", more generally understood, may apply in each case.

• when in relation to:
  • where: as argued above
  • what, who, which, how, and why -- by extension of the case with respect to where
• where in relation to:
  • when: as argued above
  • what, who, which, how, and why -- by extension of the case with respect to when
• how in relation to where, when, what, who, which, and why, especially in the light of typical challenges to any proposed methodology in terms of appropriateness of context
• what in relation to where, when, how, who, which, and why, especially in the light of typical challenges to any answer to "what" in terms of definition, understanding and appropriateness -- most notably when what is is of an unforesseen, surprising nature, fitting readily within no conventional categories
• who in relation to where, what, when, how, which, and why, especially in the light of challenges to identity and uncertainity in that regard, whether on the part of the questioner or for whover is framed by a possible answer
• which in relation to where, what, who, when, how, and why, especially in contexts rendering the process of decision-making (regarding choice of "which") problematic, or subject to challenge -- as in many political processes
• why in relation to where, what, who, when, how, and which, especially in contexts characterized by lack of clarity as to any justification or explanatin

The challenge is all the more evident if the question-pairs are understood as unidimensional -- as the lines in the schematic above suggest. The argument is well-made in speculative consideration by mathematicians of entities living on a line in a linear reality -- and their interaction with two- and three-dimensional entities. Whilst this may clarify the where-when case of space-time, the issue here is how analogous insights might apply to the other cases indicated above. Arguably many have direct experience of the uncertainty and ambiguity characteristic of the situations framed above. There is no lack of reference to the challenges of uncertainty at this time (Jonathan Fields, Uncertainty: turning fear and doubt into fuel for brilliance, 2012; Susan Jeffers, Embracing Uncertainty: breakthrough methods for achieving peace of mind when facing the unknown, 2004; M. Granger Morgan, et al, Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis, 1992; Dennis V. Lindley, Understanding Uncertainty, 2006; C. Namwali Serpel, Seven Modes of Uncertainty, 2014). There is clerly a case for confronting the distinctions made in the latter with those highlighted in relation to questions.

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]