PARTS, OBJECTS, AND THINGS
I was explicitly chartered during 1979 to concentrate on the foundations for ICODE rather than ICODE Methodology, which supposedly will follow once the foundations are seen to be more complete and substantial. One portion of this work does, however, serve to provide the needed very strong guidelines and lays an explicit foundation for developing the ICODE Methodology for network preparation. In fact, it provides a generic basis which should be followed for all of the physical aspects of the ICODE overview (see Figures 3.1 and 3. 3) -- whenever any objects that are subject to cause-and-effect forces are involved. It provides an actual template which each specific physical-object related network should fit. Such a sweeping claim indicates that the actual information content of this part of the foundations of ICODE, being so general, must either be very superficial or very deep. It is the latter, so it should come as no surprise that it takes some real investment of effort to understand it in depth.
At the most fundamental philosophical level, there is no cause-and-effect in Plex, but only on-going change and continual flux. At a more pragmatic level, however, the concept of cause and effect seems to lie at the very root of our understanding of nature -- especially in terms of the forces of "natural laws" on which our entire edifice of science, engineering, and technology appears to rest. Therefore I here present a basic model of an object which is subject to physical laws, i.e., I present a model named "Object", which I intend to be understood as a valid model for any object (physical, chemical, or other) which can experience cause-and effect relationships with other objects. I intend every such object to fit this model.
5.1 Data Modeling for Things
In my definitive version of structured analysis (which I now call RSA for Ross’s Structured Analysis to distinguish it from the many other informal uses of the term), there are two basic modes of decomposition: activity decomposition corresponding to happenings, and data decomposition corresponding to things. Most of the fundamental features of RSA activity decomposition have been incorporated into IDEF0, the ICAM Definition Methodology, but in IDEF, data decomposition has been left out of consideration thus far. The Object model which I present here is a data decomposition, because an object is a thing, not a happening.
In data modeling, names of boxes are nouns or nominal expressions, and the labels on arrows are verbs or verbial expressions (whereas exactly the opposite is true in activity modeling, as in IDEF0). The four sides of the RSA box still mean input, control, output, and mechanism, respectively, where an input activity creates the data, an output activity uses the data, and a control activity mediates between these. As in activity modeling, input, control, and output are interfaces between the child boxes which decompose a parent box by constituting its detail diagram. In both data and activity modeling, the bottom, mechanism, side of the box represents not an interface, but a channel of interconnection between models of differing orientation. One model may support boxes of another model by means of upward-pointing support mechanism arrows, and a box may obtain its detailing by a downward-pointing call arrow, referencing a box in a model supporting the parent (or other ancestor) of the calling box. The graphic notations of RSA diagram language make all of these relationships explicit and rigorous.
The reading rules for data diagrams are essentially the same as those for activity diagrams, so those already familiar with IDEF should have little difficulty getting used to the dual thing view.
5.2 Elusive "Characteristics"
Knowing that ICODE is concerned with characterization; it might be expected that I would immediately set about presenting a data model of a cause-and-effect object which would neatly tick off and structure all of its characteristics so that any such object could be recognized and characterized. Unfortunately things don’t work out that way. In fact what is or is not a "characteristic" of something is entirely a matter of opinion and convention, and many other things. For example consider the appearance of a red haired person illuminated by a sodium vapor street lamp. What exactly is the color of that person’s hair? Red? Strawberry blonde? Sickly yellowish gray? Which ever color (even if you define it to be a sharp band of wavelengths) -- in what sense does the color belong to the hair? In fact in what sense does the hair belong to the person? You see, even what is an object is a matter of convention and context. Characterization, which we all seem to do all the time informally, is extremely elusive if you try to consider it rigorously. And for ICODE we must.
In order to have a workable approach for ICODE, we must continue along the way in which I defined object in working terms as "that which is subject to cause and effect" (even though cause and effect are not basic to my frame of reference in Plex). In other words I have already adopted the convention that "If there is such a thing as cause and effect and if those rules of behavior are at least well enough known to perceive an effect as caused, then this is an object". We need a similar way to define away the difficulty of what is or is not a characteristic of an object.
It turns out that the only valid thing to do appears to be to put off entirely the question of "characteristics" and settle instead for measurable qualities of objects, postponing until some different stage the question of whether such a measurement measures the characteristic or not (or indeed, whether every characteristic must be measurable or not). The first order of business is to obtain a complete model of object, so that at least we will know what we are talking about when we make measurements or look for characteristics. That is what we will do. I will try not to use the word "characteristic" or its derivatives for the remainder of this discussion.
5.3 The Process of Measurement
So now we are left with the modeling task of representing an object in terms of cause and effect -- with measurement somehow to be a part of our deliberations. How do we proceed? Well, at least we know that objects cause effects in other objects by means of the physical or chemical (or other) forces that apply between those objects. In fact, this is where measurement comes from. If I have a part and put it on a scale, the scale measures the weight of the part. If the scale is so constructed as to have a meter, the position of the pointer on that measuring scale is both the property of the scale (namely the position of its needle) and also of the part (namely its weight). The cause-and-effect relationship between the part and the scale-as-an-instrument ultimately boils down to the measurement of the weight of the part. This measurement is a process, -- a process that results in something when it is applied to two other somethings. Namely, the measurement process applied to 1.) the part and 2.) the scale-as-an-instrument, results in 3.) the weight of the part. This weight of-the-part result is shared between the other two somethings. The weight of-the-part is a physical property of the part and the weight-of-the-part is the needle position on the meter, which also is physical. It is the same weight-of-the-part -- in each case in a form appropriate to the thing sharing it.
Notice that this sharing concept remains true even if the part and the scale instrument are taken into orbit in a satellite. The cause-and effect relation between the part and the instrument then is zero; placing the part on the scale does not cause the needle to budge. There is nothing to share that results from the "place-on-scale" relationship. There is no cause-and-effect relationship because both are freely falling and weightless. In any case, in any measurement process in which the measured value is not zero, the process affects both the part and the instrument. In fact, at the quantum mechanical level this effect is so dominant as to preclude certain other measurements.
5.4 Couplings -- The Object Model Context
Every cause-and-effect aspect of an object is in one way or another similar to this relationship between part and instrument-making-a-measurement. In fact, I will adopt the name, "part", as the focus for describing these relationships, as is shown in the diagram named Couplings, (OBJ/D-1:COUPLINGS – Top Context Diagram of the Object Model, wherein <D-1.6 = FEO of D-0.0> = Top Box of the Object Model, proper). If an object affects the part object physically I will call it a tool. If an object provides some or all of the composition of a part I will call it substance (notice that an ill-defined cloud of gas is still an object in these terms because it is subject to physical laws). If an object has any other relations of a potential or actual cause-and-effect type, I will call it an ensemble with respect to that part; in other words, the part along with other objects constitutes an ensemble -- they, along with the part, are parts of a whole.
The five boxes of D-1 show all the couplings with which we need be concerned because
Since the orientation of the model takes cause and effect as the sole basis for determination, these are the only possible kinds of couplings and hence the only possible kinds of relationships that define what a part really is. A part is in something, or something is in it; a part affects something or something affects it -- that is all the couplings there are.
The D-1 diagram has one more box, named Object, which is the D0 parent box of the Object model itself. Before considering it and the arrow structure of D-1, however, we first look at the box names of diagram D0:OBJECT, which is the D0 top-level diagram of the Object Model, itself. It shows that there are four child boxes in the detail diagram, named: <composition>, <extension>, <location>, and <participation>. Composition and location are intuitively clear enough to start with. Extension covers the extent (shape, size, and structure) of the space occupied by the object. Participation is less obvious, except in the light of the discussion just completed about D-1. Participation is the means by which the object participates in any one of the four couplings of D-1 (i.e. eight participation possibilities, in all -- for it can play either side of a relationship). Let us return to the arrow structure of D-1 to consider those four couplings first.
Box 6, <OBJECT>, of D-1 is the D0 Top box of the Object model. {Error: The <OBJ/O=6> line of the box name in the figure should be <OBJ/0=6>.} As boundary conditions, it has three inputs, two controls, and two outputs. The inputs are labeled <create>, <encompass>, and <supply>. Create is the activity that creates the object; encompass is the activity that supplies the surrounding space for the object; supply is the activity that presents other objects to the participation portion of this object in order to allow any coupling. <Employ> is an output activity that physically uses (accesses or consumes) the object, while <identify> is an output activity which uses the result of a coupling to identify or express something about the object. The two controls <effect> and <affect> express particular kinds of coupling activities. To effect is to cause to come into being: produce; to bring about: accomplish, execute. To affect is to act upon: to produce an effect; to produce a material influence upon or alteration in is to make an impression on. (Both from Webster’s.) Thus, an effect action is an initial cause, while an affect action is not.
5.4.1 Description of the Couplings
Consider the inputs and outputs of box 6 to be numbered from top to bottom and the controls, from left to right. These ICOM codes of the Called box must be written as tags beside the input, control, and output ICOM arrows of the upper five boxes in D-1, to make each of them a Caller box -- an individual SA Call upon box 6 (which confirms that each of them is an object). The tags map the Caller argument arrows onto the Called box's boundary conditions, overriding them. Called box ICOM arrows that are not thus replaced then are the parameters ot the resulting Call -- which thus has mixed ancestry {In general, the two participants in an SA Call come from two distinct ancestries, the Called's ancestor being the Support model for the Caller's ancestor (the Supported model -- support being indicated by the upward-directed Mechanism arrow type.}. Thus, for example 1i1 (i.e., the i1 input arrow of the <TOOL> box 1, labeled <configure>) is tagged with c1, because the activity that sets up a tool is an <effect> on the Called <OBJECT>. Similarly 1cl (i.e., box 1, control 1) which is labeled <control> is tagged c2, because the activity which controls a tool is an <affect>. The "dotted reverse arrowhead" at 1o1 (i.e., box 1 output 1) shows that that is a two-way arrow, i.e., both a normal output and an associated matching input {-- that both have the same <o1> ICOM code with respect to that #1 box, as a parent box (which works out OK because only the Output side of an SA Box is directed away from the box, so every ICOM arrow can have a matching reverse companion, sharing its ICOM code for two-way-ness!)}. The two companions are tagged o1 and i3, respectively, because the <apply> label showing at 1o1 is an activity which employs the <TOOL>, and a reciprocal relation <supplies> the <PART> to the tool for the tool’s participation in that particular application. Notice that the same is true when the tool is applied to an <INSRUMENT> as a control to make a measurement (1o1 to 3c2 -- i.e., box 1 output 1 to box 3 control 2). Remember that the boxes of the Object diagram, D0, include the extension of the tool, which covers its shape, size, and structure. Thus a tool may be a complex assembly that allows its control (1cl) to simultaneously apply (1o1) that tool to a part (2c1) and to an instrument (3c2), so that the instrument in turn can measure that part. In fact, since instrument (box 3) has no external control, this is the only way that a controlled measurement can be made. As <1o1 to 4c1> shows, the tool also may apply to an ensemble instead of or in addition to applying directly to the part or the instrument. Thus for example if the part has been wrapped in a package, the tool might apply to the package instead of to the part directly.
Considering the substance-to-part coupling, <5o1 to 2i1> shows that the substance is 6o1<employ>ed (5o1 tag o1) to 6i1<create> (2i1 tag i1) the part by that <constitut>ing activity! Thus constitute is the activity that uses the substance to actually make up the part. Again, because of the structure of the extension of an object, either substance as an object or part as an object may themselves be ensembles, i.e., assemblies with many sub-assemblies. Thus for example, substance might be a whole collection of nuts and bolts which are added to the existing assembly of the part to constitute a more complete part. To do so might require the repeated application of a complex of tools to both the part assembly (as a whole) and its various sub-assemblies (individually kept track of as sub-assembly parts of a continually changing ensemble whole). But in the end, it would be seen that the substance (nuts and bolts) did indeed constitute (at least partially) the part. They would have been <employ>ed to help create it. In order for this to have happened, the substance would have had to be gathered (5i1) and at each point in the constituting process, the substance would have to have been appropriately presented (5ci mediating 5o1). Such presentation is an affect (tag c2 on 5c1), whereas gathering may either encompass or supply or both (tags i2 and i3 on 5i1) depending upon the particular substance.
With respect to the part focus of D-1, the ensemble (box 4) always is used to base (4o1 to 4i1 and 3c3) some other activity on. This is why the respective ends of the <base> arrow are tagged o1 and i2 (<employ> and <encompass>, with respect to the called <OBJECT> box). When a part joins the ensemble (2o1 to 4i1), however, this is an employ-supply (tag o1 on 2o1, tag i3 on 4i1) relationship, because (according to D-1) only an ensemble can be selected (4c2, tagged c1<effect> and i2<encompass>). Only that ensemble can be 4o1 used by the D-1.o1 outside context of D-1. Thus even when the part is used directly, all by itself, it is used as an ensemble of one thing -- according to the Object Model.
Finally, the <INSTRUMENT> role of object in D-1 has the most complex environment. A calibrate activity (3i1, tagged c1) may partially create at least the state of the instrument, and a part then is supplied (3c1, tagged i3) for its participation in the measurement process. A tool must be applied (1o1 to 3c2, tagged c2) to, in turn, <effect> (first cause) the application of the instrument and part together. In general this is done in the larger context of an ensemble (4o1 to 3c3, tagged i2) which <encompass>es and provides the base for the instrument-part-measurement process. The result is to measure (3o1, tagged o2) a portion of the identity (6o2) of the part.
We now have described in some detail all possible couplings of a part with other objects in all possible roles. With these five roles in mind (the five child boxes of D-1) we may now proceed to the detailed consideration of OBJECT itself, as is decomposed in the D0 detail diagram.
5.5 Overview of an Object
According to D0, an object, as such, is known by its <composition>, <extension>, <location>, and <participation>. Composition and extension tell what the object is; extension and location tell where it is; and participation tells what it is doing. The object is defined (D0.c1 to 2c1) by its extension which defines its extent in terms of its shape, size and structure (2o1). The <space> in which the object exists is <encompass>ed (i2 fork up to 2c2) by something else, but to the extent determined by its structure (the substance of some objects may not completely fill their extension), the object <occupies> (2o1 to 3c1) its <LOCATION> which also is known relative to the same encompassing space (i2 to 3i1 to 3o1 fork up to 2c2) so that the object has a known <place> (3o1). Through a <form>ing operation (c1 to 1c1) the actual composition of the object is created (i1 to 1i1) and that composition both comprises and is comprised by (1o1 to 2i1, both directions) its extension. The English word "comprise" has two opposite meanings: 1.) "to consist of: be made up of" and 2.) "to make up: constitute". These two meanings capture exactly the two-way relation between the composition and extension of an object.
The properties possessed by an object (1o1) are determined entirely by its substance, as provided for its creation (i1 to 1i1) and transformed (1o1 to 1i1) by forming and treating operations (c1 and c2 to 1cl) as well as by cross-coupled effects to its substance caused by constraining or altering operations (2c1 from c1, c2, or 4o2) which may change (2o1 to 2i1) its shape, size, or structure. Even its location (3o1 to 2c2) may cause it to interact with external effects (3o1 to 4c1 with i3 to 4i1 yielding 4o2 to 1cl) as in the case of location and orientation of a magnetic substance in a magnetic field. In effect, participation, which involves the whole being and existence (4c1) of the object along with arbitrary other things supplied for that participation (i3 to 4i1) may effect any and all aspects of the object, including its description in context (4o1 to 4c2) as well as its definition (4o1 to 2c1). As we have already seen, the results of any such participation may depend either upon the object itself (4o2 to o1) or what it is considered to be (4o1 to o2).
The final feature of D0 is the indicated support of all four child boxes by a realization model, which covers <past>, <present>, and <future> from <birth> to <death>, of the object. This means that the entire life cycle of the object is to be tracked and represented by various appropriate detailings of the four child boxes, so that as long as the object exists, or is remembered, or even is merely described as a future potential (the gleam in the father’s eye), the object is completely covered by this Object model.
5.6.1 Composition
D1 analyzes the COMPOSITION of an object into four distinct modes of being. The composition of an object (i.e., the substance of a part) can be <resting>, <mixing>, <cooking>, or <working> -- where each of these apparently-colloquial terms here is given a strong technical meaning. Since the analysis expressed in this diagram must apply to the composition of any object that is subject to physical cause and effect, it is necessary first to have in mind a conceptual view that applies to them all.
As the discussion of the higher-level parent view of D0 (regarding the composition and extension of an object) showed, a part is in general a structured assembly of subassemblies of other objects which themselves have composition, and are shaped and structured together to constitute the overall object. With regard to D1, <MIXING> has to do with the constituent parts of this assembly (D1.2) whereas <COOKING> has to do with the ingredients, i.e., the substance, or the subparts (D1.3). A <stir>ring or <blend>ing operation (2c2) causes the constituents of the composition to mix, forming compound ingredients out of pure constituents, as in food preparation. The resulting compound mixture may then undergo a <COOKING> operation in which external energy is applied (3c2) or in which the compounded ingredients themselves release energy by a mutual <react>ion (3o1 to 3c3). Again actual food preparation is an instructive analogy. The composition of an object also may be effected by <WORKING> stresses caused by <force>s (4c2) <applied> in the use or exercising of the object (4i1), and as the reverse arrow directions indicate (4i1 to 3o1 and 3i1 to 2o1) all three of the mixing, cooking, and working effects can apply at the same time. Finally, the arrow structure shows that when none of these apply, the composition is <RESTING> (box 1), perhaps with a <grain> or orientation of its substance.
All of these aspects of composition are controlled, in the sense of Structured Analysis by the <shap>ing and <contain>ing aspect of the <EXTENSION> of the object (<D0.2i1 to 1o1 = D1.o1 control forking to all> boundary of D0.1). Depending upon the chemical or physical properties of the substance, the transition from the working state to the resting state may or may not include <hysteresis> memory (D1.4o1 up to 1cl yes, or down to 1i1 no, respectively). Similarly, when energy is no longer applied, cooling from the cooking state may relax the substance to its resting state with no apparent effect (3o1 to 1i1). Finally, all of these may supply properties of the composition of the object on a continuing basis, as its composition is transformed from one instant to the next. As the note on D1 states, the multiple two-way feedback loops of D1 completely replace the <transform> memory feedback of D0 (D0.1o1 to 1i1) which was shown there for descriptive purposes. Finally, notice that mixing works in both directions, in that a separating operation may purify the constituent ingredients of a compound (D1.2c2 controlling 2i1 to 1o1).
5.6.2 Extension
D2 is an analysis of the EXTENSION of an object, which may be <shaped>, <constructed>, <constrained>, and/or <confined> as to its extent in the space it occupies, (D0.2o1). Once again it is necessary to realize that this analysis is intended to apply to all objects of any sort that are subject to physical laws of cause and effect. Therefore it is necessary to take the most general view of such an object, which again is that it is an assembly of subassemblies of shaped other objects. The <structure> (D2.1o2 to/fro 2i1) is what is <CONSTRUCTED> out of individually-shaped pieces that compose (i1 to 1i1) the finest recognizable level of substantive constituents of the object. The <SHAPE> of the object itself results (2i1 to 1o2) from these shapes.
The total shaped aspects <D2.1o1 to i1 = D0.2i1 to 1o1> comprise the spatial bounds of the composition of the object. These spatial bounds in turn <limit> (D2.1o1 to 3c1) the way in which a physical <forcing> operation (D2.c1 to 3i1{sic! not 3c2}) may cause the object to be <CONSTRAINED>. As far as the object itself is concerned, this constraint of the force can apply only to the shaped constituents of this object by a <grasp>ing operation (3c1 to 1o1). This grasping is, however, only conceptual, because the <spatial <limit>ation> (D2.1o1 to i1 = D0.2i1 to 1o1 = D1.o1 <contain> to 4c1 <WORKING>) only <contains> or forms the substance which is the composition of the object. Only through D1.4c2 <apply forces> can forces be applied to the substance of the object, and this in turn requires the tool-part <apply> coupling = <D-1.1o1 to 2c1>. This in turn requires, as we have seen, the participation (D0.4) of both the part and the tool (by means of D0.4i1 and 4c1). The way in which this happens takes us back to D2.3o1 to 4c1 <influence, restrict>.
In D2, the D2.c1 <force> which constrains an object by <apply>ing (3c1 <grasp> to 1o1 to 1o2 to 2i1) comes bear (so to speak) on that object because the pieces out of which the object is constructed <<remain within> = 2o1 to 4i1> a <CONFINE>d <place> (4c3) which the object <occupies> (D2.4o1 to o1 = D0.3c1 to 3o1 up to <(place)> 2c2 = D2.c2 to 1c2 and 4c3). Referring to D0, the fact that the object as a PART (in the context of D-1) has a substantive piece (1o1 and 2o1 to 4c1) which is at the same place (3o1 to 4c1) as a similarly, but complementarily, constituted piece of the TOOL (4i1 with respect to the PART) allows the force applied by the TOOL (D0.4o2 to o1 = D-1.6o1 = D-1.1o1 <TOOL apply> to 2c1 = [for the PART] D0.c2 <affect> to 2c1 <constrain> = D2.c1 <force> to 3i1 to 3o1 <restrict> to 4c1) -- all that allows the force of the TOOL to actually <influence> the PART and physically grasp it.
Notice that this entire complex situation is entirely a matter of definition (D2.c1 to each box) for the extension of both the tool and the part. In fact, if the part is ill defined and has no specific shape, then D2.i1 to 4i1 shows that a fluid part (such as a gas or plasma) simply fills a confined place (4c3) which it occupies (4o1). Even so, a force may be applied (c1 to 3i1 to 3o1 to 4c1) in the same way, as would be the case of a magnetic field acting as a force on an ionized plasma. Notice that in the case of either a material or a plasma object, any distorting or influencing of the shape of that object comes about only through its interaction from the participation with the affecting tool force as it applies to the substance of the part (D0.4o1 to 1cl to 1o1 to 2i1 to D2.1i1). It is indisputably true that forces only apply to substance (i.e., composition) and that shape is entirely defined in terms of substance (D2.c1 to 1cl with i1 to 1i1). The concept of distortion of shape due to a force can therefore only be understood in terms of such an analysis as is given here.
5.6.3 Location
The analysis of the LOCATION of an object is shown in D3. The diagram is quite sparse in arrow structure, which serves to emphasis the strict imposition of structure on its correct interpretation. Since D2 already covers the extension of the object, D3 is concerned only with locating that extension with respect to the encompassing space that it occupies (D0.3i1 and 3c1). The primary terms of <LOCATION> (<spreading>, <curving>, <tumbling>, and <centered>) obtain precise meaning when the viewpoint is adopted that all objects are time-varying space-time objects embedded in their encompassing space-time which they occupy (D3.cl).
In order to establish a universally applicable way of considering the location of the extension at any instant, each object is considered to have a most-natural intrinsic coordinate and naming system, which is related to that of its encompassing space, which again is a similar object. As D3 shows, the encompassing space <provides a base> (D3.i1 to 1cl) only for the <SPREADING> aspect of the object’s occupancy (c1 to 1i1) because only this global consideration of the object determines the location around which it can be considered to be <CENTERED> (1o1 to 3i1). The path <i1 to 1cl to 1o1 to 3i1> relates this center to the encompassing space, and the center determination is intended to establish a polar-coordinate-like description of the occupany of the object with respect to the center, in terms of which spreading is purely radial.
In order for this to be accomplished, curving and tumbling must be abstracted out and treated separately so that any shift of the occupancy with respect to the encompassing space is seen as a curving move of the centered object (i1 to 1cl to 1o1 to 3i1 to 3c1 to 2o1). At the same time, in order for spreading to be completely radial, a similar accommodation must be made for tumbling (. . . 3i1 to 3o1 to 4c1). With this established, a non-curving, non-spreading, centered object still may tumble, so that the c1 to 4i1 <occupy> relation of this pure tumbling to the encompassing space (i1) completes the picture.
Notice that all of this is independent of shape, except as it is supplied by the extension of the object through its occupancy (D2.1o2 to 2i1 to 2o1 to 4i1 to 4o1 to o1 = D0.2o1 to 3c1 = D3.c1 to 1i1 and 4i1). Similarly, the coordinates and orientation of the location are supplied to the <SHAPE> of the object through a lengthy connection (D3.3o1 and 4o1 <locate place> to o1 = D0.3o1 to 2c2 = D2.c2 to 1c2 and 4c3). These lengthy paths into and out of D3, along with the center determination (1o1 to 3i1), constitute a two-way interconnection corresponding to that of move (2o1 to 3c1) and supply center (3o1 to 4c1). Thus all of these relationships are interconnected and can apply simultaneously.
It is through this coupling to the shape aspect of the extension of the object that the remaining arrow structure of D3 can be understood. As the discussion of the tool-part relation indicated, the grasping operation (D3.c2 to 2c1 and 4c2) which corresponds to the same grasping found in the analysis of extension (D2.3c1 to 1o1) only allows a force (D2.3i1) of a tool application to actually apply to a part object if these grasping aspects of extension and location occupy the same place. Similarly, for objects (such as a plasma) which do not have precise shape but are confined to a place (D2.i1 to 4i1 with 4c3 to 4o1 to o1 = D3.c1 to 1i1), the <influence> and <restrict> aspects of the application of some affecting force are quite subtle. Trace out the following two paths: <D0.c2 to 2c1 and 3c2> which are respectively <D2.c1 to 3i1 to 3o1 to 4c1 to 4o1 to o1 = D3.c1 to 1i1 <spreadng>>, and <D3.c2 to 1c2>, respectively. These paths show how the <influence< and <restrict> aspects of both extension and location allow cause and effect force to apply even to an ill-defined but nonetheless confined plasma type of object.
5.6.4 Participation
As the original discussion of D0 indicated, considering the composition, extension, and location fully analyzes an object as a recognizable entity. But as we now will see, only its participation with other objects allows that entity to become a thing. D4 shows that PARTICIPATION of an object may be <conceptual>, <nominal>, <structural>, <physical>, or <referential>. The analysis of participation into these five varieties or aspects allows all of the couplings of D-1 to be made explicit in conjunction with the composition, extension, and location of the objects in question.
Physical participation (D4.4) considers the object in objective terms while conceptual participation is subjective (box 1). Thus, for example, the reflection of a window on the surface of a polished apple is subjective, while the apple itself is objective. Subjective, <CONCEPTUAL> participation requires an observer linked by cause and effect to the object in which the subject is <perceive>d (D4.i1 to 1i1). Objective, <PHYSICAL> participation requires only cause and effect interaction with forces applying between objects which are supplied (i1, c1 to 4i1). Physical participation gives an effect that can be employed as an affective force in a cause and effect interaction (D4.4o1 to o2 = D0.4o2 joining with c2).
Subjective, conceptual participation depends entirely upon the observer who is able to <perceive> (1i1) patterns through cause-and-effect linking to the observed object. But this happens only if that observer is able to <conceive> (1c1) a valid conceptual patterning. That allows the observer to <envision> (1o1) what it is that is being seen. This conceptual patterning allows the observer to <propose> in declarative fashion a <STRUCTURAL> form for that perception (3c3 mediating 3o1 with i1 to 3i1). Appropriate names can be <selected> and <ascribed> to that declared structure (2c1 to 2o1) in a way that is appropriate to the traditional practices and values of the cultural background of the observer (2c2). Note that the names themselves may be invented directly from the perceptions (i1 to 2i1) or may be borrowed from other descriptions of other objects being supplied (i1, c1 to i1). These names and forms then allow the same envisioning (1o1 to 5c2) to define such descriptions, which is <REFERENTIAL> or descriptive participation (2o1 and 3o1 to 5i1).
All of these forms of participation come into play when an object becomes a thing, i.e., when the entity which has composition, extension, and location finally is recognized for what it is. According to Plex, type is "prescription of form", and a thing is an <object with type>. Therefore, the way in which a physical object becomes a thing is that that perceived object is understood to match (3o2 to 4c1) closely enough (c1 to 1cl to 1o1 to 4c2) to the prescribed form (3i1 to 3o1). The totality of this understanding process involves all of the arrow structure of D4, including the self-referential feedback (5o2 to 5c1 to 5o1 to 1c2) which fine-tunes the matching of names and forms to the perception of the object (i1 to 1i1) being observed (i1 to 3i1 and 4i1).