Pieter Wisse
Contragrammar is a design of John D. Haynes who presents it in Meaning As Perspective: The Contragram (1999). He is
"concern[ed about] the part attempting to function as the whole."
While "inspired by the alarming fact that only very few humans conceive of
the need to examine themselves in relation to technology," Haynes proceeds
in an even more general vein1 by addressing the need for
"assessment of any kind of relationship." Such reflection
"entails a sense of perspective." With his "little book [that]
is too small to defend itself," Haynes claims for contragrammar that it
supports arriving at what his title indicates, i.e. "meaning as
perspective."
Let me start with a cursory sketch of contragrammar, yet, of course, without
any pretense at substitution. I urge the reader to study Haynes' original
design. Short as it is, I've enjoyed it very much.2 Here, what
triggers me for my first reconstruction is Haynes' distinction between whole
and part. It leads me to think3 about decomposition of a system
(whole) into elements (parts). The analytical control of decomposition has
traditionally been to keep the system level well distinct apart from the level
on which the elements appear. Inescapable contradiction somewhere further along
the line of reasoning is then taken more or less for granted, or ignored
altogether. If anything, such conceptual difficulties tend to reinforce the
system-element differential. Haynes, however, departs to perform his first
paradoxical move. Please note that I'm not at all sure whether Haynes himself
holds this view. I am recounting my own interpretation which, due to our
different perspectives, probably is quite different from his original. So from
my perspective, rather than emphasizing the part in its partness, that is,
resisting what always seemed the obviously logical orientation, Haynes
radically reinforces the part's attempt to function as a whole. He does so by
juxtaposition. The original-part-now-turned-whole is also supplied with a part,
though. Haynes prepares for a structure supporting interpretative dynamics
because this part is the original-whole-now-turned-part.
How Haynes applies symbols is quite helpful for an efficient treatment. He
starts from an assertion about X being a part of the whole Y or, in short: The
X of Y. Next, part and whole change position as already prescribed, yielding:
The Y of X.
By transforming 'X of Y' into 'Y of X,' Haynes has clearly established a
difference. However, his second paradoxical move consists of forcing
reconciliation by joining these mirror assertions to form an encompassing
assertion, or a completed contragram: The X of Y is the Y of X.
In his "little book," Haynes demonstrates contragrammar largely
through presenting a small selection of contragrams, and commenting upon them.
In addition, he lists 238 contragrams, mostly of his own making, too. They
range from "The adaptation of nature is the nature of adaptation" to
"You find yourself in you when: the letting go of discovery is the discovery
of letting go." With this paper, I would like to contribute to development
of structural aspects, thus extending contragrammar's foundation. In
particular, I suggest that Haynes' formalization "The X of Y is the Y of
X" does not exhaust the anatomy of contragrammar. I recognize
opportunities for advancing his intriguing design.
My own perplexities provide a useful orientation. I find it puzzling, for
example, that Haynes doesn't emphasize that from any X and Y it is possible to
construct a well-formed contragram. Why not? My guess is that for Haynes
whatever 'The X of Y is the Y of X' only qualifies as a contragram when it is
true. I would say such a requirement severely hampers the potential of
contragrammar. Truth implies closure, actually undermining Haynes' productively
paradoxical moves to provide an opening to dynamics of meaning. Could it be
that Haynes is actually undecided? My impression from his comments on specific
contragrams is indeed that for him they seem to capture, i.e. in the sense of a
closure, a 'complete(d)' argument. But, then again, where he abstracts into
formalism, Haynes certainly stresses the potential for ongoing dynamics in
meaning.
I would like to stay away from the categories of truth and falseness, especially
in any absolute sense. Suppose I'm right to recognize two threads with Haynes
on his contragrammar, it is the one which opens to meaning that I find
intriguing and productive.
Above, in the Introduction, my sketch of contragrammar starts from distinguishing
between whole and part. I derived it from Haynes' stated "concern [about]
the part attempting to function as the whole." However, the formula
arrived at, "The X of Y is the Y of X," makes me wonder at the
beginning of the current paragraph why Haynes didn't conclude that from any X
and Y it is possible to construct a well-formed contragram.
It is easy to overlook the source of confusion. I believe the condition 'from
any X and Y' deserves precedence. It accomplishes the essential recognition that
whole and part are secondary, only. Forming a contragram therefore doesn't
start from 'the X of Y,' as Haynes seems to suggest. More productively, I would
say it starts instead from a 'X' and a 'Y,' subsequently yielding both 'the X
of Y' and its contra 'the Y of X,' and finally 'the X of Y is the Y of X.'
From these structural considerations alone, I can already suggest how Haynes'
expressed concern may be elaborated upon. Is it really only about one
particular part taking over as another particular whole? Or is the more general
issue that of the equilibrium in whole-part relationships? And does
contragrammar help to realize how a whole is always relative to its part(s),
vice versa? Then, does a contragram which Haynes would consider 'true,' suggest
how whole and part are optimally balanced, i.e. where it is inessential whether
the 'part' of whole or the 'part' of part is occupied?
So far, only well-formed contragrams with two variables have been considered. It seems easy enough to see how contragrammar might be extended when variables are indexed. So, X becomes X1 and Y becomes X2. However, what exactly counts as a contragram when starting from the set {X1, X2, , Xn}? Where lies the demarcation between whole and part? Is it variable, too? Do all, with 1<f< n,
the {X1, , Xf} of {Xf+1, , Xn} is the {Xf+1, , Xn} of {X1, , Xf}
count as well-formed contragrams? I don't see any reason why not, especially
not because any subset can be transformed to a single variable, resulting in a
bi-contragram. All the same, the set { X1, X2,
, Xn}
is not ordered. The number of orderings is determined by permutation, which is
symbolically given as n! When it doesn't matter which whole/part sequence comes
first, n!/2 combinations are relevant. In addition, it is also relevant where
the demarcation is drawn. With n variables, there are (n-1) possibilities.
Therefore, the sum of poly-contragrams that are configurable from a set of n
variables is (n-1)n!/2.
Structurally, a contragram is limited to contra-ing two assertions. Does it
make sense to extend contragrammar along this dimension? I don't believe it
would produce meaningful results, but at least for discussion's sake it might
be worth a try. However, I refrain from it here.
Another idea is to consider other relationships, i.e. different from those
between whole and part. Likewise, I leave it to later stages of discussion to
attempt such extensions, for example by applying (other) propositions.
My interest in contributing to a discussion of contragrammar was also
sparked because I recognized how Haynes' design could be beneficially modeled
with the metapattern (Wisse, 2001). What follows here, however, is only a very
crude summary of the metapattern, at best. For with my short-cuts explaining
it, I directly aim at a discussion of contragrammar.
The thick, horizontal line in figure 1 represents the horizon of the universe
of significance. The metapattern stipulates all behavior is situationally
determined. An object therefore appears in a model as a collection of situated
identities, with specific behavior 'attached' as relevant. As a boundary
condition, even generally valid behavior is also situated (the situation of
behavior is the behavior of situation). In those cases, the situation equals
the universe of significance. For a bi-contragram, figure 1 provides an
overview. In figure 1a, it starts with the general objects X1 and X2.
Then, in figure 1b, X2 is also identified as an object with relevant
behavior in X1 as a situation. Please note, as the dotted, curved
line indicates, that the X2-as-part-of- X1 is derived
from X2-as-a-whole in its own right. Also note that the actual
behavior of X2-in-X1 is not yet modeled. To indicate that
such behavior is in order, the metapattern's symbolic language prescribes a
text balloon, as added in figure 1c. Figure 1d completes the bi-contragram by
including X1 as identifying specific behavior in X2 as a
situation, that is, behavior different from X1 in all other relevant
situations, and subsequently referring to such behavior itself by another text
balloon.
Figure 1a-d: Modeling the bi-contragram.
The explicit emphasis on behavior is what importantly distinguishes figure 1
from a contragram stated as 'The X1 of X2 is the X2
of X1.' It is now possible to indicate compactly both how the X1
of X2 is "united" with the X2 of X1,
that is, by contra-ing the relative positions of constituent variables, and
what "distinguishes" the one subset of variables from the other
(behaviors).
Poly-contragrams require explicit recognition of both permutation of variables
and demarcation with the subset. Figure 2 only shows one instance of all
possible permutations, but it should make the general idea, and complexity, clear
enough.
Figure 2a-b: Modeling the poly-contragram.
It must be realized that figures 1 and 2, as is all of this paper, are 'only' signs. A sign, according to C.S. Peirce (1902), is an irreducible element in semiosis. Pragmatism holds that a sign leads an interpreter to a belief about reality as a basis for his behavior. Semiosis therefore includes dynamics between three elements: sign, interpretant and object. Inspired by the metapattern's articulation of a sign, I have extended Peirce's original semiotic triad into an ennead (Wisse, 2002). The three elements have been developed into dimensions, now each constituted by three more detailed elements. The irreducibility between elements, already emphasized by Peirce, remains. What has been gained is explanatory power. See figure 3.
Figure 3: The semiotic ennead.
I repeat that it is only signs that can be pointed at specifically, and therein lies their important value. Interpretants are beyond reach objectively, as they reside inside subjective cognition. Contrary to what naοve realism holds, whatever object an interpretant 'is about,' is therefore even twice removed from objective analysis. Of course, this shouldn't deter from speculation. Armed with the speculative apparatus of the metapattern and semiotic ennead, I will now return to Haynes and the first part4 of Meaning as Perspective for some additional comments on his "very brief general account of contragrammar."
is the focus of presence. Haynes writes that taking "responsibility
for our experiences" involves "contemplative thinking about, or focus
upon, our experiences." I don't agree that focus equals self-conscious
thought. All cognition proceeds by semiosis. Focus is therefore always active,
too, because of the semiotic ennead's irreducible constitution of elements. I
would say that dynamics of cognition are especially driven by focal shifts.
Intuition amounts to cognitive punctuation (Brouwer, 1907), and referring to
intuition suggests how we live by focus largely unconsciously. In terms of the
ennead, isn't it more apt to argue that "responsibility for our
experiences" requires recognition of motive? Can such recognition only
succeed when we are able to maintain a particular focus? And with the motive
come one or more concepts as mediated through a particular focus (the
consciousness of motive is the motive of consciousness). Then, are we living
fully responsibly when we behave on the basis of a recognized and affirmed
motive as corresponding concepts indicate?
For all practical purposes, focus and perspective are synonymous to me. Along
the interpretative dimension, around focus as the shifting hinge connecting
motive and concept, meaning dynamically develops. Focus, or perspective, is
irreducibly present in dynamics. I therefore strongly agree with Haynes when he
argues for "meaning as perspective." How do I evaluate the claim that
a contragram is "a very appropriate vehicle for capturing a sense of
perspective [
] and thereby offering that perspective to be re-experienced as
meaning"? I think what is vital about perspective, or focus, is that it
changes. Meaning is not static, not stable. Is a rhythm of focal shifts the
engine of meaning dynamics? Could it be that consciousness is always memory,
i.e. an interpretative trace marked by past perspectives, or foci? Then, a
contragram may help to establish new trails of foci (the perspective of
relationship is the relationship of perspective).
I also agree that contragrammar entails a procedure for manipulating signs
from any
but then there's an infinite variety of procedures imaginable to
stimulate semiosis. So at least from my perspective,' "the focus of
perspective is the perspective of focus" qualifies as a tautological
contragram. I'd like to add that as far as I can judge, what is 'contra' about
the 'gram' is reversal of position of elements. I wouldn't say that it
necessarily results in a contrafocus, or more or less opposite perspective.
Still, as modeling with the metapattern shows, background becomes foreground,
etcetera. In some sense, indeed, a contragram might make semiosis 'jump.'
How cognition traverses from one focus to the next doesn't seem to be governed
by logic (but by intuition, whatever that is). So, from this own
(meta)perspective Haynes makes also sense to me when he "argue[s] that our
relationship to meaning is not logical, it is instead non-logical."
Without referring to semiosis and therefore regretfully overlooking the sign as
an intermediary, irreducible element of dynamics, he nevertheless emphasizes
that "meaning always has the quality of perspective." Once again, I
agree with the irreducibility of perspective.5 He continues by
ascribing to meaning "the quality that emerges between the reflecting
subject and the object of reflection, by which I mean that meaning is always
perspectival." I still closely follow Haynes in his "view that
meaning is not in the object of consideration, nor is it in the subject that
enacts the consideration." I believe meaning is in the process, mediated
by sign. Is that what Haynes aims at qualifying "the explicit meaning [as]
a thing-in-itself [
] for the experience between the object of consideration
and the subject undergoing the experience of considering"? I prefer the
subject taking a more active part, but perhaps on the whole that is just a
detail (the whole of the part is the part of the whole).6 Actually,
Haynes seems to say that a passive subject "would be doing no more than
perceiving the object." How he presents it, perception is a precondition
for "treat[ing] the object in a conceptual way," that is,
"conceiving of the object in a meaningful way." From the model of
the semiotic ennead it may be gathered that I abstract from perception, as I do
from consciousness, for that matter. As there is irreducible focus involved in
cognition, it includes a corresponding concept just as irreducibly. I therefore
find Haynes' remark superfluous that a contragram is "essentially
concerned with conception." As a sign, of course it is! Enneadic semiosis
implies concept, too.
is the term of extension. Haynes has already dealt with extensions,
however limiting himself to three variables. He calls an "extended
contragram" when "the structure remains the same." In my terms,
whole and part are perfectly mirrored (or contra-ed). "A tri-part
contragram" allows for "any internal re-arrangement;" the order
of variables may be randomly varied, which is a procedure I haven't included
yet, above, for poly-contragrammar.
I have no comments on what Haynes labels a "definitional contragram."7
Or it should be that with possibilities for disjunct multi-situational modeling
there is of course no problem "for contradictories [to] co-exist."
Every behavior is simply assigned to the situation for which it unambiguously
qualifies.
What am I to make from the requirement that "at least one term in the
contragram must be a concept"? Applying the semiotic ennead as my frame of
reference, it sounds confusing. When a contragram is taken as a sign, I would
only apply the 'concepts' of context, signature and intext to it. So, it is
not a concept itself.
Of course, this is not what Haynes intends to say. But I cannot follow him in
his Platonic orientation, that "a concept is a thing-in-itself'; the
essence of the thing." When perspective is always present, as Haynes also
emphasizes, there's simply no value in essence other than honoring perspective
(the responsibility of essential perspective is the essential perspective of
responsibility).
I'd like to translate Haynes' requirement for meaningful dynamics 'signed-off'
by a well-formed contragram. The metapattern demonstrates how an object's
identity in one situation is derived from its identity in another situation.
The boundary condition for an object's identity is where the situation equals
the universe of significance. I would say that especially objects thus situated
are optimal candidates for contragrams. In terms of the original distinction
between whole and part, it is a whole that is still least partitioned that
promises productive semiosis through contragrammar. This is confirmed by the
extensive list of contragrams Haynes also provides. While acknowledging that my
interpretation is essentially subjective, I'm sure that other readers of
Haynes' list will also recognize most of the terms he applies as referring to
generalizations. For example, nature now is a very popular generalization and
therefore lends itself eminently for inclusion in contragrams. Almost any other
term may be combined with it without immediately resulting in nonsense.
Indeed, such generalizations offer least resistance for configuration. When one
generalization is used to constrain another, chances are optimal for meaningful
residue. Another factor contributing to contragrammar's potential for at least
not evoking nonsense is that interpretative ordering seems arbitrary to a large
extent. Especially when starting from generalizations, it therefore doesn't
matter too much which term comes first and which one next. Non-critical,
elastic ordering might simply be a consequence of collecting generalizations.
As long as short-circuit through nonsense can be avoided, ongoing semiosis may
well discover sense, that is, a behaviorally meaningful according to
pragmatism, behaviorally meaningful is of course a pleonasm configuration of
focus with motive and concept.
Starting with generalizations also explains how a contragram exhibits a
"play on words." One word may be interpreted very differently when it
appears in different contexts. Now even when a contragram doesn't expressly
state its generalizations, they are nevertheless clearly implied. It is the
interpretation that every term, so to speak, already supports. Haynes: "[B]oth
[
] terms are initially perceived as separate." I wouldn't have referred
to the concept of perception, there. Anyway, another interpretation of each
variable is now suggested through the whole of which it now explicitly appears
as a part (the history of polysemy is the polysemy of history).8
is the view of point. From structural aspects of contragrammar how is a
contragram determined as well-formed? the discussion has shifted to
conditions for meaningful dynamics. It is such conditions that Haynes is almost
exclusively occupied with. He doesn't allow "any two words representing
logically related objects." A neglect for a structural foundation is also
evident, for example, where Haynes mentions that a contragram is "only complete
(or genuine or successful) when the relatedness of its two (or more) terms
emerge as a new point-of-view, that is, the relationship yields (or gives birth
to) a basis or (conceptual) essence for the point-of-view." I would argue
for interpretative success to be understood pragmatically as establishing a
focus connecting a particular motive with concept for useful behavior of the
interpreting subject. It is clear that a subject stands to gain from experience
applying contragrammar. Dependent on the subject, I suppose that any two, or
more, terms may be applied to form a contragram that could set off productive
semiosis. Compared to Haynes, I'm of course only a beginner at contragramming
and that's precisely why at this stage I'm looking for structural support.
On the other hand, I can contribute several methodical tricks developed in my
earlier work. For example, the metapattern and the underlying semiotic ennead
are also helpful to position what Haynes calls a contextual contragram. I
merely say that it is impossible for a sign not to appear in a context. A
universe of significance counts as the ultimate context for a sign. At first
sight, then, "a particular context," such as Haynes refers to, could
be modeled as a vertical series of separate nodes, rather than the horizon(tal
line). The contragram itself can now be easily attached below the lowest of
those contextual nodes, as figure 4 shows for a bi-contragram.
Figure 4a-b: Modeling the contextual contragram.
However, it turns out that Haynes' definition might be mistaken. He prescribes that a contextual contragram is a contragram "that only makes sense in a particular context." This doesn't fit his format, though. It reads9 that 'p when: the X of Y is the Y of X.' This way, embedded contragram is the context of Z, rather than the other way around as Haynes maintains. It can be simply repaired, though, by changing it into 'When p: the X of Y is the Y of X.'
is the ideal of explanation. I have already stressed that despite a lack
of explicit semiotic perspective, I largely agree with Haynes on meaning. I
repeat the quotation that meaning "emerges between the reflecting subject
and the object of reflection." How does it fit his view, expressed further
on in Meaning as Perspective, that a contragram
"(ideally) explains itself." No sign explains itself. Semiosis
irreducibly relates all of its elements. The explanation of meaning is the
meaning of explanation, by which I 'mean' to say that explanation, too,
"emerges between the reflecting subject and the object of
reflection." Explanation is a case of semiosis.
Haynes concludes the descriptive part of Meaning as Perspective with some remarks on "contragram notation." I find
his visualization actually very suggestive of semiosis, too. His basic shape is
an enlarged symbol for infinity, thus also resembling a Mφbius band. Attempting
to relate notation to process, Haynes more or less equates the traversal of
laps he also refers to successive scans of a contragram with cognitive
progression, i.e. "the movement from perception to conception: from the
perception of content (implicit stage) through to the experience (or
re-experience) of forming a conception (explicit stage)."
For myself, I don't feel the need to distinguish such stages on the basis of
Kant-like categories, or at least cognitive faculties. Instead, I recognize a
foundation in the general anatomy of cognition for which I've designed the
semiotic ennead as a theory. Its structural elements are invariant (for
interpretation they are always: motive, focus and concept), but punctuated
semiosis results in different configurations (the nature of nurture is the
nurture of nature). In fact, much of contragrammar's attraction
as-I-understand-it lies in its potential for surprise. Given a particular
contragram, does semiosis follow a fixed pattern of stages, or scans? I don't
believe so. Isnt there an evolutionary advantage in intuition operating to a
degree of randomness? Of course, there are constraints on cognitive dynamics.
But just a few of such invariant structural elements constitute infinite
variety of configuration. It is a good design that helps to explore and develop
configurations, and I believe contragrammar is such a design.
Notes
1. More specifically on technology, Haynes adds in his Preface
that "there is nothing wrong with it" as supplying "partial
solutions to living our lives as humans. They are remedies or supplements to
our lives." Yet, "the human condition is considerably more than the
sum of its supplements." Haynes warns against "the unreflected use of
technology [as it] will consume some of our critical abilities as human beings,
in particular, our ability for appreciating conceptual meaning." The
quality of efficiency is the efficiency of quality. But doesn't the problem
originate from too limited a view of technology? The nature of technology is
the technology of nature.
2. I am very grateful to John Haynes for sending me a personal copy: the
pleasure of reading is the reading of pleasure. It's easy to experience the
author's joy at writing such a book.
3. Of course, I'm aware of diverging from Haynes' approach. Rather than
avoiding it, for the aim of constructive discussion I'm emphasizing differences
as I experience them.
4. As already indicated, part two contains Haynes' list of 238 contragrams.
5. I have earlier written on a synthesis between Haynes' perspectival
phenomenology and my own subjective situationism (Wisse, 2003).
6. I'm sure that especially an aphorism such as 'the whole of the part is the
part of the whole' is not at all my original invention. As I couldn't discover
that this particular sentence has been expressed earlier, though, any
plagiarism on my part is therefore far from intentional. Anyway, the point I
want to add here is that Haynes' contragrammar first of all provides a
procedure for increased productivity by trial and error. Often, in hindsight a
particular contragram leads to the obvious, i.e. an insight that the subject is
surprised about it still needed discovering. The second benefit of
contragrammar is that it supports each and every single contragram. With the
growth of both case experience and structural expertise, the practice of the
master is the master of practice. Semiosis inspired by one contragram
contributes to semiosis started by another, and so on. Therefore, recognizing
'the whole of the part is the part of the whole,' not merely as a clever
aphorism, but as a contragram, too, immediately increases intensity of
interpretation.
7. In note 1, above, I've added the contragram 'the quality of efficiency is
the efficiency of quality.' But it might be better to state that the 'the
quality of efficiency is the inefficiency of quality.' More or less following
the format of Haynes' examples, would 'the quality of efficiency both is and is
not the efficiency of quality' qualify as a "definitional
contragram"? It seems well-formed enough, but I'm still left with my lack
of understanding of how Haynes defines "definitional."
8. When names, or generally signs, are not confused with what they are supposed
to identify, the metapattern supports awareness of, say, possible superficial
differences. One and the same overall object, an individual person, for
example, may be known by different names in different situations (and/or
different 'subjects,' hence subjective situationism; see also note 5, above).
This is almost the opposite of the play of contragrammar, with its invitation
to break through the superficiality of the repetition of identical names/signs
in order to appreciate a different order of meaning.
9. Haynes doesn't supply the formula for contextual contragrams. I designed it
to clarify my point.
References
Brouwer, L.E.J., 1907, Over de grondslagen
der wiskunde, Mathematisch Centrum (Netherlands, reprint, 1981).
Haynes, J.D., 1999, Meaning As Perspective: The
Contragram, Thisone (New Zealand).
Peirce, C.S., 1902, Logic as semiotic: the theory of signs, in: Philosophical writings of Peirce, edited by J. Buchler,
Dover (reprint, 1955, pp. 98-119).
Wisse, P.E., 2001, Metapattern: context and time in
information models, Addison-Wesley (USA).
, 2002, Semiosis & Sign Exchange: design for a
subjective situationism, including conceptual grounds for business information
modeling, Information Dynamics (Netherlands).
, 2003, The constitutional force of perspectival phenomenology:
philosophical unification in information systems, in: Proceedings
of the Ninth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Association for
Information Systems, pp 2766-2774.
Pieter Wisse (www.informationdynamics.nl/pwisse) is founder and president of Information Dynamics, an independent company operating from the Netherlands and involved in research & development of complex information systems. He holds an engineering degree (mathematics and information management) from Delft University of Technology and a PhD (information management) from Amsterdam University.
August 2003, web edition 2003 © Pieter Wisse