{Catastrophe Theory [continued (6)]}[26th September 1988]

[Redbook5:361-362][19880926:1545f]{Catastrophe Theory [continued (6)]}[26th September 1988]

19880926.1545

[continued]

*This is, of course, an objection I have foreseen to Circles Analysis: that each statement is either obvious or incorrect. Many of the claims made for Catastrophe Theory** are similar to those I have made for Circles Analysis.

I think one important difference is that Circles Analysis is not primarily mathematical. I am intrigued by the possibility of algebraic representations of its geometric form, and believe that there may well be one – perhaps more than one – available. But if the mathematics should come with a pattern which did not match the present symbolism, we should have to check both*** against realities in a qualitative or judgemental [sic] way; the maths might simply be found to be inappropriate.

It should be noted that although I know that the Circle is geometrically inappropriate, I continue to use it because its woolly or ‘resonant’ symbolism is more useful. I have pursued mathematical possibilities (as far as I am able) primarily to discover how C.A.**** is likely to be received.

*[See last previous entry]

**& for Deterministic Chaos?

***[ie both the mathematics and the present symbolism]

****[Circles Analysis)]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger04052019]