0313 Tabaczek recounts the works of Karl Krause (7581-7632 U0′), who transfers the positing of an Absolute Ego (or “I”) into the philosophy of science.  Krauss writes about two centuries after Galileo (7364-7442) and a century after Isaac Newton (7442-7526) but before Charles Darwin (7609-7682) and James Clark Maxwell (7631-7679).  Kant (7524-7604) is an older contemporary of Krause.

0314 Krause wants science to have an Absolute I.  He calls the intuitive principle, “Orwesen”.  This term can be loosely translated into English as “Or what?”  To me, “Or what?” sounds far superior to “the god of all philosophers”.

Each scientific discipline serves a relative I, an explicit principle called, “Urwesen”, loosely translated as “That’s what”, which is easier to say than “My narrow specialized discipline is better than yours.”  Also, “That’s what” sounds more tractable than “the god of all religions”.

0315 Krause distinguishes two movements to science.  One is analytic-ascending.  The other is synthetic-descending.

No, don’t say “transcendent” or “immanent”!

Those words are not scientific!

Now, I refer to the prior diagram.

0316 On the ascending motion, if I associate the subject of a scientific discipline_1a with phenomena, then observations and measurements may be labeled, “objective_1b“ and the subsequent model goes with “analytic_1c“. 

This sequence may be confusing, especially when modernists use the word, “objective_1c” instead of “analytic_1c“.   The confusion is cemented in modern terminology, which defines “objective” as “irrespective of what any person thinks of it”, rather than “pertaining to sign-objects, as opposed to sign-vehicles”.  Yes, sign-objects are “objective”, one way or the other.

On the descending motion, if I associate suprasubjective_1c (which would otherwise associate to God’s point of view) to scientific disciplinary language_1c.  Intersubjective_1b goes with the operation of defining the meanings, presences and messages intrinsic to observations and measurements_1b.  Without proper definitions, then researchers are not talking the same language. Finally, synthesis_1a goes with the resulting model_1a.

0317 What does this imply?

Clearly, Krause operates on the agent-science side of Tabaczek’s mirror and constructs an image (say, a reflection at the bottom of the well of immanence) that is supposed to belong to the… um… agent-theology side (the transcendent Absolute I in the sky).

Please note, the words, “immanent” and “transcendent” do not appear in the previous paragraph, because this is all about science.

0318 Let me start with God… I mean to say… the Orwesen, the “Or what?” that inspires us to recognize a noumenon when we encounter one… or maybe… recognize the whole as a noumenon.

Here is a picture, similar to figure 3.1 in Tabaczek’s text.

0319 This diagram defines the perspective level of a three-level interscope.

0320 One imagines that the Orwesen is an actuality₂ subject to the laws of contradiction and noncontradiction.  It_2c is, but it is also an actuality₂ on the perspective_c level, implying that it excludes (or forces into alignment) all other candidates for that slot_2c.  Even more intriguing, this actuality_2c unites (or synthesizes) contradictions (or theses and antitheses) within its domain (which must be the situation and content levels).

0321 Klause picks a good example.  Consider the distinction between “reason” and “nature”.  Two centuries after Klause, I shall use the words, “model” and “noumenon”, the two illuminations in the Positivist’s judgment.

For any given science, the elaborate structure of the Positivist’s judgment occupies the overlap… or perhaps the gap (a)… between model (i) and noumenon (e).  Humans stand in the gap (a).  Humans stand on either side of the gap.

0322 Here, I roughly associate Klause’s variables with elements of the ongoing three-level interscope.

0323 The distinction between the model (i) and the noumenon (e) supports the machinations of a scientific discipline, equivalent to Urwesen (u), loosely defined.  The Urwesen (u) orders experience within its domain. But, there are aspects to the model (i) and the noumenon (e) that extend beyond the perimeter of each scientific discipline (u).  While both i and e emerge from (and situate) the possibilities of the world as existent, a scientific discipline (u) is the unity where the model (u(i)) stands in mutual gaze (a) with its noumenon (u(i)).

Yes, a mutual gaze (a) emerges from (and situates) the potential of situating the overall contrast between the model (i) and the noumenon (e).

Here is a picture.

0324 Okay, let me try those last sentences again, but with subscripts.

The Urwesen (u)_3a orders experience within its domain_2a, but there are aspects to the model (i) and the noumenon (e)_2athat extend beyond the perimeter of each scientific discipline (u)_3a.  While both i and e_2a emerge from (and situate) the possibilities of the world as existent_1a, the scientist_3b works with an actuality where the model u(i)_2b stands in mutual gaze (a)_2b with its noumenon u(i)_2b, as they emerge from the potential of situating the overall contrast between the model (i) and the noumenon (e)_1b.

0325 Here is a picture of the Krause’s three-level interscope.

0326 Does the reader notice any subtle changes?

On the content level, the model (i) contrasts with the noumenon (e)_2a.

On the situation level, the scientist_3b regarding the model u(i)_2b gazes (a)_2b at the noumenon u(e)_2b and sees a reflection of his own image.

On the perspective level, a science-agent regards his own image in the noumenal side Tabaczek’s mirror_1c, instead of a theology-agent.  At the same time, a theology-agent sees his own image on the empirio-schematic side of the mirror_1c, instead of a science-agent.

So maybe, instead of “o_2c“, the perspective-level actuality should be designated “o-o_2c“.