There are several very key points in the last summary, which may be reformulated as follows:

1. The categorical value of symbolism is actually independent of the mode of rendering (e.g. geometry, natural or poetic symbols, glyph-like or graphical symbolism), at least in the context of a specific metaphorical context, such as the way point and space define both circle and cross as opposites, in an opposite fashion to the way black and white define grey. What is compared then is not a graphical resemblance, but rather a difference in subtle properties which define the specified field.

2. The "center" of an ameliorative method in fact implies degrees of separation from a center of correspondence; in this sense the field is dimensional horizontally by coherence, and vertically by correspondence.

3. Categorical fields describe one reality, which coheres insofar as it describes one condition or field of conditions.

4. The combinatorial relationship of symbols in fact leads to a hierarchical ladder of correspondence reaching for elemental archetypes conceived as ideal cases or game states in which a paradoxical mechanic is continually resolved.

What is implied by 1 and 2 is then a vertical field of correspondence by categorical symbolism, and a horizontal correspondence by symbolic transformation. Thus the vertical element implies a hierarchy in which simple or original--eventually archetypal--forms join in an axis of conjunction. Horizontally identities relate in a field of similarity and interrelation that may be abbreviated as categorical elements of distinction from the vertical, describing distance of relation from a specified field of "original" interrelations.

Considering parts 3 and 4, the conjoining of categorical fields in terms of the vertical and horizontal is expressive of a sort of spacial architecture of situational dynamics within a symbolic counterpart to considered states of identity and relation. Moving beyond this, the logic of relation may in fact be determined in terms of archetypal modes of relation. In other words, like architecture, the architecture of distinct symbolic states, even in terms of multiple categories of relation, may be determined in terms of the approach to a room or the method of interpreting a state.

For example, there may be a categorality of travel as opposed to a categorality of structure or basis. The truth that originates from sheer reality is not necessarily the truth that originates solely from power, etc. By considering roots there is a travel from root to a changeable future condition or objective (deontology), and there is an ontological amelioration of considering dynamic or representative states of holism. Although the first case may yield more results, the second in fact informs the range of conceivable symbols. Out of the dynamics of the unity of symbols, identities of key states become evident.

Paradoxical dualism provides a door to reconceiving the primary state as one reflective of an entire breadth of perceivable realities. I will expand on these points in the following Notes & Summary.

Intention and Architecture, by Carolyn Fahey

2 years ago