Transformational-Treatment-Retreatment-Philosophy

A Critical Tool for Disentangling Philosophical Disputes
Involving Processes of Transformation

Definitional Introduction

	Transformational processes are either relatively simple or complex. Simple processes involve either transformational processes of an analytical-reductive like nature or transformational processes of a synthetical-constructive like nature, or, transformations of identity wherein the logical subject is subjected to neither analysis nor synthesis in its change(s) of state. Complex processes of transformation involve combinations of the former, e.g., synthetical and analytical types of re-constitution of that subjected to a process of transformation, etc. 
The content, or product, subjected to a transformational process of treatment realizes a treated product higher in meta-status by one degree. A process of transformation that re-realizes the original meta-status of the pre-treated product, or content, is called a transformational process of retreatment.
A process of transformation can be defined as a process of treatment and/or retreatment wherein there is a shift in meta-status and an alteration of constitution within that process of transformation (although not necessarily between the pretreated product(s) and retreated product(s) when the same logical subject(s) is(are) re-realized at the end of a treatment-retreatment process). Transformation is perceived as taking place in an epistemologically, or consciously, influenced simulation of time and space although it need not be considered as beginning there in processes of treatment nor end there in processes of retreatment.

Conceptual Introduction

	When we think about something and subject it to a process of transformation we are entertaining the idea of that mental content in a relationally oriented frame of reference, i.e., what relationship is borne between the parts and totality of that logical subject(s) before and after the process of transformation. E.g., the builder looks at a pile of bricks and sees them in their mind’s eye as a house. This house is a relational house, a  house with a meta-status one degree higher than the bricks originally looked at. The house has not been built yet so where is this ‘house’ other than in a relational state of thinking so to speak. I.e., in a metaphorical language we might like to ‘see’ this as a ‘mental idea of a house hovering before the mind’s eye’. The builder builds the house and we find we end up with a physical house – one that can be lived in! The beauty of this philosophical tool is that by mapping out all the sequences in this process of transformational envisualization we can clearly demarcate for critical purposes pretreated products, treated products and retreated products and all of the corresponding pathways that take us from pretreated product(s) (or content(s)) to treated product(s) and retreated product(s). These five aspects should not be confused (a process complicated when complex processes of treatment/retreatment are conjointly being entertained). E.g, ‘bricks’ and ‘houses’ might be both material objects in the world we can live in the latter but not the former (unless one were an ant, e.g., and the brick was hollow). Moreover the ‘relational idea of a house’ and the ‘realized house built by the builder’ should not be confused in the intricacies of philosophical argument. The former is virtual and can only be entered virtually where as the latter, when realized, can be physically entered if one is in a position of being able to do so. These types of distinctions are too often overlooked! Moreover, when different process of transformation are taking place at the same time we often confuse these separate aspects of genetic unfoldment with each other, a problem further compounded when we fail to account for the transformational nature of their accommodated integration as well!

	Now, this type of investigation must not be thought as purely academic or so rarefied as to not deserve our attention as either philosophers or non-philosophers! Quite the contrary! Analysis (reduction) and synthesis (re-constitution) are two moments in the hermeneutic circle of understanding, fundamental to all processes of understanding, as discussed elsewhere. Moreover, for the phenomenologist (and the hermeneut/hermeneuticist, and the existential practitioner) the very attempt to produce/reproduce a transcendental suspension necessitates a balance between these two moments in the hermeneutical circle of comprehension.

	Although this philosophical tool may seem complicated to begin with, and impossible to put absolutely into practice when dealing with the chaotic complexity of human intentionallity, its basic premises are relatively simple and need only be applied to the essential aspects of basic strands exercised in argumentation. Furthermore, they are probably best depicted diagrammatically as follows:

Digrammatical Representation of Transformational Treatment-Retreatment 
Processes

Reductive-Analysis

E.g., the Demolition (Analysis) of a House

Meta-status 1					  b). Idea of demolished house

					       >			>
					     >			  >
				Treament Pathway a-b	Retreatment Pathway b-c

Meta-status 0 				>			       >
(can be read as			          > 			         >
the object language)		a). House				 c). Demolished house

Reconstitutive-Synthesis

E.g., the Building (Synthesis) of a House

Meta-status 1					  e). Idea of built house

					       >			>
					     >			  >
				Treament Pathway d-e	Retreatment Pathway e-f

Meta-status 0 				>			       >
(can be read as			          > 			         >
the object language)		d). Bricks for building house		 f). Built house

	So, from the above diagram, elements a, b, c, d, e, f, and pathways a-b, b-c, d-e, e-f should likewise not be confused!

	This philosophical technique can also be used for establishing the nature of the relationship between entities of the same meta-status (and different meta-status) that don’t have the same ontological nature either as pre-treated products, treated products and/or retreated products. Indeed, most of our lives in the lifeworld involve our interaction within apparent relationships entertained between disparate types of entities, e.g, metaphor and the assumed reality of the phenomenon being imaged, a musical score and the performance of a piece of music, concepts and percepts, language and ‘reality’, the idea of love and the reality of its expression, etc., etc. To establish some form of inter-relational interaction an ‘identical’ process of isomorphic-invariance will be assumed to hold between the parties of that apparent relationship in all meta-modalities invoked for the representation of that transformation relationship (i.e., in all aspects of treatment and retreatment implicated in that overall transformational process). Again a diagram might better illustrate this for us:

Let us say we are ‘looking at’ an ‘image of a hand (p)’ and the ‘conceptual understanding of that hand (c)’. Now let us say the conceptual hand c has ‘five fingers(5fc)’ as part of its concept. And in the same fashion let us say the perceptual image has ‘five fingers(5fp) as part of that image.

Now c R p (i.e., conceptual hand can relate to perceptual hand) and v.v. because:

c rc(conceptually relates to) 5fc  & p rp (perceptually relates to) 5fp.

	Because rc is isomorphic with rp w.r.t. ‘five-fingerness of hand’ …

	It implies c R p.

In effect it could be argued that rc is isomorphic to rp because of ‘five-fingerness’ therefore the transformations of c to p or p to c are possible because of that isomorphic invariance in that relationship R between c and p.

Diagrammatically Represented:

C				R				P
		:				:				:
:				:				:
rc			       rc R pc				rp
:				:				:
:				:				:
5fc			5fc rcp 5fp/ ‘5p’			5fp

   Modality c	            cannot be related directly with…	   Modality p

	        But c and p can be related via transformation invariance central to R…		

Conclusion

	In our example of the virtual mapping of a conceptual hand with an imaged/imagined perceptual hand an accommodation between the modalities of conceptuality and perceptuality are pre-assumed to have been pre-accommodated. In the epistemological organization of the psyche one cannot adopt the position of an absolute accommodation between any two or more aspects of the psyche. On the other hand the relative unity, and integrity, of the psyche equally implies that a complete absence of accommodation cannot be envisaged between different aspects of that psyche. Of course, in effect, it may well transpire for all practical purposes, that consciousness may not be aware of the fact of that accommodation because of abnormal functioning of that psyche (as in strokes, lesions, etc.) or because the normal functioning of that consciousness cannot allow it to be realized in consciously received awareness. As a consequence both absolute commensurability and absolute incommensurability can neither be argued for! Consciousness only operating in this in between region.

	With this model of interaction between entities of different type, given this pre-accommodational ground, processes of interaction (and interactive transformation) can take place virtually by virtue of this invariance of isomorphic ground. When the different products are treated on a relational level to the same type of modality, albeit increased by one meta-degree, and there is a symmetry between the interaction of these disparate parties in their respective meta-modalities, then given this isomorphic invariance a relationship can be seen to take place ‘virtually’ (in a time/space higher again by one meta-degree). Then with retreatment onto a same meta-par as the initial disparate product-types it follows a relationship can then be engendered between the same given this pre-accommodated ground and isomorphic invariance across the same.

	The philosopher (whether as a phenomenologist, hermeneut/hermeneuticist, and/or practical/theoretical existential practitioner, etc.,) now has one more powerful tool for re-thinking much of traditional philosophical and cultural thought. But time does not permit me to follow this application in more detail. 

							         Noël Tointon, Sydney, 24.2.01.