4.3.  World-Model III: Many Logics/One World

Plagiarism in world-model III is very difficult to understand from the viewpoint of world-model I and II, i.e., from the Western classical, modern and post-modern culture and law.

There may be one “observational point of view” involved in world-model III but there exist for the same observational experience a multitude of different codes. In contrast to the world-model II, with its many-to-one codification, the world-model III is involved into a one-to-many codification of the interpreted and experienced reality. It seems that the situations of world-model II and III are in some sense complementary. Nevertheless, despite its concptual complementarity to world-model II, there is a big obstacle to codification and formalization in world-model III.

Codification in world-model II might be conceived as a distribution and mediation of existing situations, hence a polycontextural dissemination of known theories. Complementarily, for world-model III, the multi- and trans-pespectivism of polycontexturality has to be seen as a multi- and trans-(hyper)reality. A sign might have many meanings, like in the constellation of polycontextural polysemy, but in world-model III, a singular meaning might have a cluster of different reality presentations.

A formal logical thematization of the epistemological situation of world-model III might have a first trial with a so-called Grossetest logic. A second turn is risked with a more profound understanding of complementarity. It could open up the realm of morphogrammatics. Morphograms are pre-semiotic patterns, which are well implementing the one-to-many approach.

The funny question if I could plagiarize myself and therefore be fined for my own plagiarism is absurd only if the personality of the person in question is identical with itself. But there are good reasons to not to search for one’s identity, simply because it might be preferable for situations, where the self is conceived/constructed as a multi-personality. Hence, I and I are not the same. Therefore, there are two I’ s involved: I₁ and I₂. And this is the sine qua non for punishing I₂ to have plagiarized the work of I₁.
In other words, multi-addressability of persons opens up highly interesting constellations.

Obviously, this goes far beyond of the non-intentional self-application of the Spitzer Laws to Eliot Spitzer himself.

A proper functioning, psycho-sociologically and legally, of this strange situation of multi-personality and self-application, might force us to move to the world-model IV.

Epistemology: The different is the same.

Fazit: The case has to be negotiated.

The “Patent for invention” characters in Chinese: