{Catastrophe Theory [continued (8)]}[26th September 1988]

[Redbook5:363][19880926:1545h]{Catastrophe Theory [continued (8)]}[26th September 1988]

19880926.1545

[continued]

Thirdly,* and I think most importantly, applied C[atastophe] T[heory] and D[eterministic] C[haos] deal merely in the [‘]how?[’] of things even compared with the rest of Science, which (contrary to C[atastrophe] T[heory]’s claims, as I understand them) seems generally to be more, not less, successful at establishing causal links than are C[atastophe] T[heory] and D[eterministic] C[haos]. By contrast, Circles Analysis in its full-form – Spherical Analysis? – actually attempts to answer the ultimate [‘]Why?[’] of things, in a linguistically and pictorially symbolic (rather than an algebraically symbolic) form: that is to say, it attempts to relate the states and sequences which are its pre-occupations to an outline of the whole pattern of being and becoming, arrived at by intuition and imagination, and subject to empirical confirmation and invalidation [sic] where such is possible, and to rational analysis throughout.

*[See last 2 previous entries]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger04for06052019]