4.4.  World-Model IV: Many Logics/Many Worlds

Originality and plagiarism are involved in a complex interplay, relativizing both terms at once. In world-model IV it is reasonable to think of originality as a theft, and of plagiarism as the origin of the work.
The secondary might be the original and the originary the secondary. The challenge to rational and legal interactions is demanding to reject and to surpass all forms of absolute identities, like rationality and reality.

World-model I is realizing consistency of rationality and coherency of reality; excluding all kinds of paradoxes and antagonisms.

World-model II is based logically on para-consistency and ontologically on the phantasm of the unreachablility of a coherent reality. It is including on the logical level, i.e., rationality, a whole bunch of self-referential constructs, re-entries, contradictions and paradoxes but it is excluding on an ontological level, i.e., reality, all kind of proto-structural antagonism.

World-model III is complementary to world-model II, hence it is ontologically based on proto-coherence, and on the logical level on the unreachablility of rational consistency and para-consistency. It is including on the reality level a whole bunch of self-organization, circularities, antagonisms, struggles and emergent behaviors.

World-model IV is plurifying in itself the features of the previous world-models, which are based on the desires of unification towards a universal rationality (logic) or an ultimate reality. But because there is no save heaven left in world-model IV, neither on the rationality nor on the reality side, consistency and coherency has to be situatively co-created between logical and ontological movements. Such movements are not only chiastic, or in other words, proemial, as in polycntextural systems of world-model II, but enantiomoroph and antidromic. That is, chiastic movements, logical and ontological, are at once involved with their counter-movements. Such movements, therefore, cannot be identified, named and gathered (legein) at once, neither with a para-consistent nor a proto-coherent interaction or intervention towards rationality and reality of their movements.

Hence, the second-order pradigm of a recursive construction of reality and rationality has to be completed with its complementary, antidromic paradigm of iter/alterability.

In contrast to the previous world-models, which are descriptional, world model IV is scriptional.

Epistemology: The same and the different are interacting differently as well as similarly, at once.

Fazit: The case needs computational support for negotiation, mediation and decision.
That is, interactional, reflectional and interventional computation and conversation.

Summary

World-models mapped, in respect to sameness and differentness, onto distinct general trends in mathematical logics and semantics.

4.4.1.  Disciplinarity revised

As far, I have followed the traditional way of proposing the game of mono-/multi-/inter-/intra- and transdisciplinarity. One step further would have to introduce the distinctions of proto- and meta-disciplinarity. With all that we are still embroiled into the cartography of Greek terms and their topo-logic. Independently of how many terms are involved to describe the game of disciplinarity, their order remains - more or less - hierarchic and based on identity and diversity. That is, “inter” is “inter”, “trans” is not “inter” and “multi” is “multi”. But the operator “is” is not necessarily identical with itself. What’s the “trans” of the “inter” and the “inter” of the “trans"? Such duplications are necessary for a reflectional interpretation-language, which is thematizing and interpreting its object-domain with second-order terms. The description-language is dealing with the first-order terms directly. First-order terms are part of a mono-contextural description-languague

Hence, first-order terms are ruled by the is-abstraction, second-order terms by the as-abstraction. Therefore, the formula “mono is mono” is transformed into “mono as mono”, “mono as multi”, “mono as inter” and “mono as trans”. That is, the introduction of a multitude of different positions of description, observation an involvement enables different kinds of thematizations. Hence, to speak simply, say, of “interdisciplinarity” is an underdetermined characterization because the position of the distinction-making isn’t included into such a characterization. On the other hand, if there is a multitude of different positions included, it is more than natural that the different positions of observation and involvement are also producing different results. Therefore, what appears for one position as interdisciplinary might appear for another position as transdisciplinary.

The possible interpretations, therefore, is nothing else than a matrix of the involved terms. As a first step, we could organize the terms in a matrix instead of a tree.

Table 1. Contextual matrix for disciplinary modi

modi/disciplin	mono	multi	inter
mono	mono/mono	mono/multi	mono/inter	mono/trans
multi	multi/mono	multi/multi	multi/inter	multi/trans
inter	inter/mono	inter/multi	inter/inter	inter/trans
trans	trans/mono	trans/multi	trans/inter

As a first step, could introduce for "mono/multi”, i.e., “mono as multi”, or generally: “X as Y”, the wording : “What appears as ‘mono’ from your position, appears as ‘multi’ from my position”. But both positions are accepted as a simultaneous interplay from both positions or from an additional reflecting postion.
A second step would have to specify the roles of the different positions according to the world-models they are involved.
A third step would have to consider a further specification. The formula “X as Y” is not complete, we can specify: “X as Y is Z”. Hence, what is the meaning of “Z"? "Z” represents the complex interplay between “X” and “Y” as such.

BAD NEWS: [Just lost this paragraph=cell. Therefore, where is the original? Only some keywords are left.]

transition/transformation/metamorphosis,
proto/meta,
surface/deep structure,
is-/as-abstraction,
sociology of philosophy, philosophy of sociology, Social Epistemology, Steve Fuller vs epistemology of sociology,
knowledge grid,
bologna/semantic web,
challenge bologna/china/zhuge.
http://www.knowledgegrid.net/~H.zhuge/data/Discovery_of_Knowledge_Flow.pdf

"The way we classify the disciplines is not incidental, and a strong argument can be made that our current system of metatheory is path dependent. For example, under the Dewey Decimal system, psychology, now considered a science in the social tradition, is classified under philosophy, a decidedly humanities-oriented categorization. This conceptualization is not without consequence, and the perception of which “bins” ( contain a discipline influence the production of knowledge.” http://www.scholar-warrior.info/scholar/research/eod/index.php

Reconstructing the original

Obviously, the original got lost. How can it be reconstructed? As what could such a reconstruction, say with the help of Apples Timemachine or another diskdoctor, be recognized? As a copy of the original? How could it be evaluated in the absence of its source? Would such a successful reconfiguration be a plagiat of my own, but lost, original? Would I plagiarize myself? Is this possible at all? At the time, I have to leave this question open.