The analysis of entities in terms of their typical
structures is an important feature of reformational philosophy. In this
connection Dooyeweerd spoke of “individuality structures.” Unfortunately others
have not been happy with this terminology since we can never reach a things
true individuality through a structural analysis. Roy Clouser has used the term
“type-laws”. In the end the words used is not the most important thing, though
different reasons can be given for certain choices, what is important is a
correct understanding of the concept. Here we shall use the term idionomy which
captures the meaning in one word combining idios meaning “proper to” and
nomos meaning law. Ouweneel defines idionomy as the law that is proper
to a certain kind or class of entity, the law that makes the entity the entity
it is.
This
theory of idionomy is best explained through examples. Let’s start with a natural thing, a
tree. A tree functions subjectively, that
is actively, in the first five modal aspects:
Numerically: the number of leaves, branches etc.
Spatially: the shape of the leaves, the amount of space the
roots need in order for the tree to grow.
Kinematically: the momentum and movement of its parts
Physically: the energy transfer going on in the tree.
Biotically: the growth of the tree to maturity, its method of
spreading its seeds.
The
last of these, the biotic, turns out to be the most characteristic. A tree is a living thing which grows,
nourishes itself and reproduces according to the laws of biotic
development. All the other active
functions are subservient to this. The most characteristic modal aspect is
called the “qualifying function” or the “guiding function” which helps remind
us that we are not dealing with something static but with active functioning
that guides and even actualises the internal character of the entity. While the
tree is qualified by the biotic mode it is not cut off from the later modes and
so can be opened up to being perceived, analysed, formed and reshaped in
various ways, it can be named, it can inspire a piece of music, it can be
bought and sold and so on. For these possibilities to be disclosed one requires
animals which function actively in the later modal aspects.
As
we investigate entities we notice that each entity has a modal aspect that is
most characteristic and so functions as the “qualifying” or “guiding”
function. Recognising the qualifying
function is important as it gives us insight into all the other modes of the
thing and the way they form a unity. All
the other modal aspects are lead by the qualifying mode which means that
the way they function is, in part, determined by the character of its
qualifying function. So the number of
leaves and roots, the kinds of spatial arrangements between its parts, and
molecules found in a tree are determined in a typical way by the qualifying
function of the tree. In spite of the
unmistakable multiplicity of its modal aspects this thing is a concrete
individual unity. As a concrete thing it is not just a collection or
combination of its modal functions. Reformational philosophy rejects the
metaphysical “bundle theory” of things. The unity of the entity in its totality
comes first and is all the time presupposed in this analysis, it is not the end
result of the analysis. However we should also note that the internal structure
of a plant is very intricate and involves more than one idiomony. It can only
function based upon its physical building blocks such as molecules which have
an idionomy of a completely different nature. This state of affairs will be
discussed later when we come to the phenomenon of encapsis (§28).
This
kind of analysis has a critical quality that helps us to do justice to the
structural unity and integrity of things.
We shall see this to a greater extend when looking at social
institutions. But just to note its
importance now we can point to the way that capitalism, as an ideology, can
lead us to view things primarily as economic objects and so fail to treat
things with integrity. The ecological
value of trees can be ignored in an economic valuation (trees are not just
‘timber’), the living, feeling character of animals may be violated in modern
farming methods, and so in this way such a structural analysis can help us
identify what is wrong and what requires reform in our treatment of things.
As
we have already mentioned the analysis of entities can become a lot more
complex when we see how different wholes are intertwined in special ways
(encapsis). For now we add a brief
second example. If we take a bird’s nest
we find that it functions actively in the first four aspects (numerical to
physical), however a bird’s nest cannot be explained in purely physical terms. To come to a more complete understanding we
need to take in to account its object-function in the biotic life of the
bird. It is this that characterises a
bird’s nest and so the qualifying function in this example is an
object-function rather than a subject-function.
This conclusion should be tested against the empirical evidence which
might suggest that the psychical function is of greater importance in
determining the characteristic of a bird’s nest. Or is perhaps the reproductive function of
the nest more important? Such questions
remind us that the theory of entities cannot be applied ready-made but must
deal with empirical reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment