Wholes and Parts (2)

We have seen how our knowledge of number keeps switching - depending on context - as between part and whole aspects.

Indeed if we were to use a close analogy with quantum physics, number keeps switching as between particle and wave aspects.

So in this sense the wave-particle duality that applies to matter (especially at the sub-atomic scale) equally applies to number. Indeed I would maintain that this observed physical phenomenon itself ultimately reflects the whole-part duality of number!

We have also seen that conventional mathematical interpretation is inherently unsuited to dealing with this issue. Because of its unambiguous (1-dimensional) nature, it inevitably reduces qualitative meaning in absolute quantitative terms (whereby in effect the whole is reduced in terms of its constituent parts).

Thus again, if we were to use a close physical analogy, the present position in Mathematics is akin to the attempt to understand quantum mechanical behaviour in terms of standard Newtonian concepts.
Indeed in truth the problem is even more fundamental than this!

Nothing less therefore than a radical reformulation of the nature of the number system - and indeed by extension all mathematical notions - is now required.

For the simple fact exists that at present one cannot give a properly coherent interpretation of the simplest example of multiplication - indeed the simplest example of addition - in terms of the accepted mathematical paradigm.

Thus with respect to the number system, the present static absolute approach urgently needs to be replaced with a new inherently dynamic interactive interpretation, whereby the distinctive nature of the part and whole aspects of number can be properly preserved.


Therefore, for many decades now, I have proposed that rather than one natural number system - interpreted in an absolute rigid manner - that we need to recognise that there are two complementary aspects to this system, which interact with each other in dynamic fashion.

I refer to these aspects as Type 1 and Type 2 respectively.

Initially the Type 1 aspect would appear to bear the closest resemblance to to conventional interpretation.

So, again in conventional interpretation the natural numbers are listed as:

1, 2, 3, 4, ..........

Now in Type 1 terms, these are listed in more refined manner as:

1¹, 2¹, 3¹, 4¹, ……..

Again to simply illustrate in conventional terms, 

1 + 1 = 2.

Therefore both units are treated in an independent fashion as quantitative parts, with the resultant total representing the sum of these quantitative parts. 

Thus "2" - though referred to as a "whole" number - in this context, is given a merely reduced quantitative meaning (i.e. as the sum of constituent unit parts). 

However in Type 1 terms,

1¹ + 1¹  = 2¹.

The dimensional number (i.e. power or exponent) here refers implicitly to the corresponding whole status of the number.

Therefore to explicitly recognise that 1 + 1 = 2 (in a quantitative manner), one is implicitly recognising that 2 is equally associated with a new unitary whole status.

In yesterday's blog entry, I illustrated this with respect to the two slices (of the cake).

So the ability to recognise that that the combination (through addition) of each (individual) part slice resulted (collectively) in two part slices, implicitly requires recognition of the total cake as a whole unit. Thus the very ability to recognise the two individual slices as being related to the overall cake would be impossible in the absence of this implicit recognition of the cake possessing both a part and whole status. So again its part status is represented by its 2 individual slices. However its whole status is then represented by its distinctive status as 1 cake.    

And by including the dimensional number of 1, we are here recognising the corresponding whole identity of  the number "2".

The deeper implication of this is that this whole identity (in 1-dimensional terms) implicitly enables an interdependent relationship as between the two individual units (of 2) to be maintained.

So in ordinal terms, we would look on the two slices of our cake as the 1st and 2nd slices respectively. However we have now moved from the notion of independence (with respect to the two individual slices in cardinal terms) to the complementary notion of interdependence (with respect to the "same" two slices in an ordinal manner).  

And this equally applies to number. Thus in cardinal terms we can refer to 2 as 1 + 1 in quantitative part terms (where both units are independent in a homogeneous fashion).

However in corresponding ordinal terms, we can refer to 2 as 1st + 2nd in a qualitative whole manner (where both units are interdependent in a uniquely distinctive fashion).

And this whole nature of 2 comes from switching from its part status (as comprised of 2 independent units) to the new identity (as a unique whole in its own right).

Therefore, it is impossible to properly recognise the distinctive nature of the cardinal and ordinal interpretations of number, without also properly recognising the dual nature of number in terms of its part (analytic) and whole (holistic) aspects. 

Thus there is an underlying paradox here:

In explicit quantitative terms, we attempt to define each number as the part combination of individual units.

So again for example, 2 = 1 + 1.

However this part total of 2 itself represent a single unit (in qualitative whole terms). 

Therefore though we are indeed entitled to explicitly make clear quantitative distinctions with respect to the part nature of number (i.e. in analytic manner), implicitly we need to bear in mind the holistic qualitative nature of number, which makes these distinctions possible.

However, we equally have a Type 2 aspect to the number system. 

Now in the Type 1 aspect we have separate number (quantitative) objects (defined within a 1-dimensional framework).

However with the Type 2 aspect we have the same quantitative object (defined within multiple dimensional frameworks).

The easiest way to appreciate this is in terms of a unit line (in 1-dimensional terms) which is now used to define a unit square (in 2-dimensional terms).

Therefore through the quantitative nature remains unchanged as 1, clearly the dimensional nature of the number object has changed (from 1 to 2).

Now if one reflects for a moment on the 2 dimensions of a square object, clearly they cannot be independent of each other but must be related in a very ordered manner.

Thus the crucial point about the Type 2 approach is that we now are adding related (i.e. interdependent) units. Thus these units now represent wholes rather than parts (as was the case with the Type 1 aspect).

Thus when we add for example 1 + 1 (now representing wholes) the whole status i.e. the dimensional nature of the object is directly changed. 

Now the startling fact is that what represents addition with respect to this Type 2 aspect, represents multiplication from the Type 1 perspective.

So  1¹ * 1¹  = 1².    

And 1² = 1^{1 + 1}. 

However, when adding numbers as wholes (representing dimensions) the new qualitative change (i.e. the dimensional status of the object) can only explicitly be understood, through implicitly recognising the quantitative nature of the base unit (as measured in 1-dimensional terms).

Thus we can only combine numbers (as parts) through implicit recognition of their corresponding whole status. Likewise we can only combine numbers as wholes (representing dimensions) through implicit recognition of the quantitative nature of each dimension (in isolation).

Thus the Type 2 aspect of the number system is listed as:

1¹, 1², 1³, 1⁴, ……..

Note how it is the inverse of the Type 1 aspect, reflecting the change is explicit focus from the part (quantitative) to the whole (qualitative) nature of number.

However just as explicit part recognition implicitly requires corresponding whole, equally explicit whole recognition implicitly requires corresponding part recognition respectively.

In fact both forms of recognition are dynamically complementary with each other in a two-way manner.

Wholes and Parts (1)

I keep coming back to the most fundamental issue possible with respect to the true nature of number, which unfortunately due to the reduced nature of present mathematical interpretation is completely ignored.


It might help initially to explore this key issue in a concrete manner with a simple practical illustration.

Imagine that we have a cake that is cut into 2 (equal) slices.

Now as each slice comprises one distinct unit we could represent the cake as,

1 + 1 = 2.

In other words the two slices (comprising the cake) entail the addition of the individual (separate) units.

However this represents but a reduced interpretation of the relationship as between whole and parts whereby the (whole) cake is viewed in a merely fragmented manner as the quantitative addition of the individual unit parts.

So therefore from this reduced - merely quantitative - perspective the (whole) cake is represented as 2 (part) units.

However the cake has also its own unique whole identity, which would be represented as 1 (i.e. one whole cake).

So we have the paradox that the cake can be represented as 2 parts or alternatively as 1 whole.

So in the very dynamics of recognition, in order to relate parts and wholes we must implicitly switch as between both part and whole recognition (with respect to objects) or alternatively as between quantitative and qualitative recognition, which are dynamically related to each other in a complementary manner..

Thus again with respect to this example the quantitative recognition of the cake represents its 2 - relatively independent - part slices.

The corresponding qualitative recognition (in this context) then relates to the recognition of the cake as a whole unit (i.e. as interdependent with itself).

Of course the cake could now in turn attain a (part) quantitative status - say - as one of a collection of  cakes!

In our example, we initially treated the slices of the cake as quantitative parts (in relation to the whole cake).

However, each slice in turn has a qualitative identity whereby it is recognised as a whole in its own right. So if for example each slice contained individual components, these would thereby now constitute distinctive parts in relation to the whole slice!

In more general terms, phenomenal reality is necessarily composed of holons (i.e.whole/parts) whereby, in any context, what is whole (from one valid perspective) is equally part from an equally valid related perspective.

And in reverse terms, phenomenal reality is composed of onhols (part/wholes) whereby what is part (from one valid perspective) is equally whole from an equally valid related perspective.


So, in the example above, we illustrated how the whole cake (in relation to its 2 slices) could equally be part (as an individual item in a collection of cakes).

Equally, we saw how the part slices (in relation to the whole cake) could equally serve as unique wholes (in relation to constituent parts of each slice).

I cannot stress enough how important this distinction as between the part and whole status of an item (which is relatively quantitative as to qualitative and qualitative as to quantitative respectively) truly is, for when grasped, it leads to the need for a fundamental new interpretation of the very nature of the number system.

Basically in conventional mathematical terms, a merely reduced quantitative interpretation of number is given, which is of an absolute static nature.

So, for example, though we do indeed refer to a natural number such as 2 as a (whole) integer, in effect it is defined in a merely reduced part manner as quantitative.

Thus 1 + 1 = 2. In other words the whole number (i.e. 2) is treated simply as the quantitative sum of its constituent parts. So again, a fundamental reduction of qualitative in terms of quantitative meaning is thereby directly involved.

However, when we properly allow for the truly distinctive nature of both part and whole meanings in relation to number (which again are - relatively - quantitative as to qualitative and qualitative as to quantitative respectively) we must necessarily move to a new dynamic interactive treatment of the number system.

I will suggest the appropriate manner for achieving this in the next entry.

Reflections on Number (5)

In my previous entries, I have stressed that every number can be given both an analytic and holistic interpretation respectively and that in the dynamics of experience, both aspects are inevitably intertwined, with one made explicit in conscious manner, with the other remaining - relatively - implicit in unconscious fashion.  .

And each number can likewise be given a base identity or a dimensional identity respectively.

So once more illustrating with respect to the dimensional aspect, the number 3 has an analytic interpretation with respect to 3 (referring to 3 dimensions in a quantitative manner). However 3 equally has a qualitative interpretation as the "threeness" or the quality of 3, which thereby enables the common identification of all members relating to a class of 3 dimensions (such as the length width and height measurements of different rooms).

However one might wish to probe further as to the precise difference as between the quantitative and qualitative interpretations.

So again, if I for example refer to the 3 dimensions with respect to the room of a house (length, width and height) this represents the accepted quantitative view.

However in conventional terms the distinct identity of a number (such as 3) used with respect to objects is not properly distinguished from what is used for dimensions.

But there are crucial differences. 3 as used for objects has a finite specific meaning i.e. as  3 unit objects). i.e. 3 = 1 + 1 + 1

However 3 as used for dimensions has by contrast a collective general meaning. Here each unit (i.e. separate dimension) applies potentially to every possible natural number in an infinite manner). So one more, length, width and height measurements could apply to 1, 2, 3, 4,.......rooms.

There is also another key difference:

When we use 3 in the restricted finite sense (where each unit applies to just one actual object) the units are treated as independent and homogeneous.

So when 3 = 1 + 1 + 1, the relationship between units is not considered.

However as far as dimensional "units" are concerned, this is not really the case. Here the units are not in fact independent but are related to each other in an ordered fashion as length, width and height respectively.

Thus treating the units as independent gives them a reduced meaning. Now it is true that from a quantitative perspective, that if we have 3 dimensions for a room, as length width and height respectively, the total volume will be the same (irrespective of the order in which they are taken).

So in fact when we multiply numbers a dimensional aspect is always involved. However in reduced quantitative terms this is ignored so that 2 * 3 * 5 for example = 30 (with no reference to the dimensional change involved).

In other words when we multiply 2 * 3 * 5 in this way, it is as if we accept that these measurements thereby belong to to the same dimension. So for example if we recognise the length as the only dimension, then 2 * 3 * 5 thereby represents the 3 numbers multiplied with respect to the same dimension. So the answer is thereby given in 1-dimensional terms.

So the very key to recognising higher dimensions (> 1) is that such dimensions by their very nature are not absolutely independent of each other, but must exist with respect to each other in an orderly manner.


So what we are faced with all the time is a constant dialectic as between notions of independence and interdependence respectively.

With independence, we view the units as quantitative in a cardinal manner.

So again 3 = 1 + 1 + 1.

However with interdependence, we view the units as qualitative in an ordinal fashion.

So here 3 = 1st + 2nd + 3rd.

And in experiential terms with respect to understanding, these two notions are necessarily of a relative nature in a dynamic complementary manner.

Thus we can only explicitly recognise cardinal units as independent (in an explicit quantitative manner), if we already implicitly recognise a corresponding ordinal relationship between units (in a qualitative manner).

Likewise we can only explicitly recognise ordinal units as interdependent (in a qualitative manner) if we already implicitly recognise a corresponding cardinal relationship between units (in a quantitative manner).  


So the key issue then relates to how we can successfully convert as between qualitative and quantitative notions respectively.  

Reflections on Number (4)

In yesterday's blog entry, I discusses - using the number 3 to illustrate - how its four distinctive meanings could be represented in mathematical terms.

This implies a dynamic interactive form of understanding where both a base and dimensional number are used in conjunction with each other. When the number i.e. 3 in this case is used to denote the base aspect, the corresponding dimensional aspect is given as 1; however when 3 is then used to denote the dimensional aspect, the  corresponding base aspect is now 1.

Then in each case either the base or dimensional number is explicit in conscious understanding, with the other aspect - which is dynamically complementary - playing a merely implicit role in an unconscious manner.

So understanding keeps switching as between both conscious and unconscious recognition with respect to base and dimensional number respectively.

Here I wish to trace out more precisely the psychological dynamics that are involved with respect to such number recognition.


First we have the rational analytic perception of "3", which equates directly with 1), in yesterday's blog entry. This corresponds to the specific recognition in an explicit conscious quantitative manner of the number object "3" (as having a distinct individual identity).

Again I have denoted this as 3¹. This entails however the implicit unconscious recognition of 1 representing a dimension. In other words without this implicit recognition of the 1st dimension as potentially applying to all possible natural numbers, we would not be able to identify "3" in an explicit manner.


Next we have the intuitive holistic perception of "3", which equates directly with 2), in yesterday's entry. This corresponds to the explicit general recognition in an unconscious qualitative manner of the number object "3" (as applying to all actual classes of 3).

I have identified this in inverse fashion as 3¹. This again entails the implicit conscious recognition of 1 as representing the 1st dimension now identified in rational fashion as applying to all finite natural numbers. So once again without this implicit recognition of the 1st dimension, we could not collectively identify 3 with different classes (of 3 objects).


Then we have the rational analytic concept of "3" which equates directly with 3) in yesterday's entry.
This corresponds to the explicit general recognition in a conscious quantitative manner of the number "3" as representing dimension (i.e. as comprising 3 linear dimensions).

I have denoted this as 1³.  This again entails the explicit conscious recognition of "3" representing 3 (linear) dimensions. However once again without the implicit recognition of 1, where 1 now has a qualitative holistic meaning giving each unit an individual uniqueness this recognition of 3 dimensions would not be possible (as this requires uniquely identifying each dimension as length width and height respectively


Finally we have the intuitive holistic concept of "3"which equates directly with 4) in yesterday's entry. This corresponds to the explicit general recognition in an unconscious qualitative manner of "3" representing dimension of potentially applying in an infinite fashion to each of its 3 directions.

I have denoted this as 1³. This again entails the explicit unconscious recognition of 3 representing 3 (circular) dimensions. However without the implicit recognition of 1, the arbitrary relative position of each dimension (as 1st, 2nd and 3rd respectively) would not be possible. In other words the 1st dimension must be fixed in a relatively - independent fashion before the other two dimensions can be related to it.


Therefore to conclude each number continually alternates in dynamic interactive fashion as between its analytic and holistic expression with respect to both base and dimensional aspects; this corresponds directly in complementary fashion with the likewise interaction of rational and intuitive expression with respect to both perceptions and concepts respectively.

Reflections on Number (3)

We will show here how each of the four meanings of a number can be represented in mathematical terms.

What is crucial here - in what properly represents a dynamic interactive form of understanding - is to express every number with respect to a dimension.

So in the general case a^b, a represents the base and b the dimensional number respectively.

Thus now using once again the number 3 to illustrate we will go through the 4 distinct meanings

1) This again is the standard quantitative interpretation of 3 as representing a cardinal number.

This can be written as 3¹. So here the emphasis is explicitly on 3 as the base quantity.
Because of complementarity this means that the dimensional number 1 is merely implicit enabling 3 to be uniquely identified (from all possible members on number line).

So 3 as base is quantitative (in explicit terms); 1 as dimension is qualitative (in implicit terms).


2) This corresponds to our second definition in yesterday's entry where 3 as base number now explicitly takes on a holistic qualitative meaning as the notion of "threeness" which enables the collective identification of any group containing 3 members.

This can be written as 3¹. So here the emphasis is explicitly on 1 as the dimensional quantity (i.e. applying to all members on the number line).
Then the emphasis on 3 is now implicit where 3 has a unique qualitative meaning that is potentially infinite.

Notice how in the case of 1) 3 represents a specific number quantity; however by contrast in the case of 2), 3 now represents a holistic number quality (applicable to all possible groups of 3 members).


3) We now switch to ordinal notions

3 now takes on the meaning of a distinct group of 3 members that is explicitly defined in terms of its 1st, 2nd and 3rd members. This thereby represents a qualitative meaning of 3 that is actually finite.

This can be represented as 1³.  So the emphasis here is explicitly on 3 as the dimensional number in qualitative terms which implies that implicitly the base number of 1 is understood in a quantitative manner. What this implies is that before we can rank members of a group ordinally (i.e. in qualitative terms) we must implicitly recognise each as a separate unit (in a quantitative manner).


4) We finally have the notion of ordinal identity that can be applies collectively to any number of groups (with 3 members).

This is written as 1³. Here each group of 3 is identified explicitly as separate unit (which then is implicitly recognised as containing members that are arranged in an ordinal fashion). This in fact represents a quantitative meaning of 1 that is potentially infinite.

Therefore what happens in the dynamics of experience is that the number 3 here keeps switching as between its cardinal and ordinal meanings in both an actual finite and potentially infinite manner.
Alternatively it keeps switching as between quantitative and qualitative meanings in both an analytic and holistic fashion collectively.

Reflections on Number (2)

Once again I am going to illustrate 4 distinct meanings of number - illustrating with respect to the number 3 - before then showing that are in all inextricably linked in experience.

1) We start with the standard cardinal notion of 3 which represents the accepted quantitative notion of number e.g. 3 cups on a table. Number here is given an analytic independent identity (without qualitative distinction).

2) Here we have a very distinctive notion of 3 as now collectively applying to all groups (containing 3 members). So 3 can apply to 1, 2, 3, 4,.... groups without limit.

Now enormous confusion exists in Mathematics with both 1) and 2) generally confused with each other.

This is a crucially important point as the proper understanding of multiplication depends on this distinction.

Now again using 3 in the first sense might notice 3 cups and later - say - 3 letters in the hallway and perhaps then 3 cars in the driveway.

However strictly the recognition of 3 in each case would necessarily remain independent of each other.

So therefore the crucial factor in being able to establish a connection as between each group is the recognition that 3 now plays - as in 2) - a collective role (i.e. as what is common to each group).

As I say these two meanings with respect to number are intimately tied up with the process of multiplication.

Imagine two rows of coins laid out in rectangular fashion with 3 coins in each row.

Now from a multiplicative perspective we would represent this as 3 * 2.

So what is involved here is the initial recognition of 3 coins (in each row) in an independent manner.

Now if we only recognised the notion of 3 as independent as in 1) then we could only represent the total number of coins in an additive manner as 3 + 3 (where again both are interpreted in an independent manner).

 However multiplication requires that we likewise recognise 3 as interdependent in a collective sense. This thereby enables us to see the common relationship as between each row.

Therefore in the relationship 3 * 2, 2 now indicates the common rather than independent notion of 2.

In this sense multiplication necessarily entails both 1) and 2) with respect to the interpretation of number with the first number relating to 1) and all subsequent multipliers to 2).


However we also have two further meanings of 3.

3) in this case 3 represents an individual group where the 3 members are all related to each other in an ordinal manner. This is the corresponding qualitative notion of number where the members of the group are identified as 1st, 2nd and 3rd respectively.

So with 1) 3 = 1 + 1 + 1; however with 3) 3 = 1st,+ 2nd + 3rd

4) In this case 3 no takes on a collective meaning where again it refers to the common recognition of all groups of 3 (where each is defined in a qualitative ordinal manner).

Thus in its simplest terms 4) represents at an ordinal level what 2) was earlier seen to represent at a cardinal level.

Now in dynamic experiential terms, it is impossible to separate these meanings, for they all imply each other in a complementary manner.

Thus the recognition of 3 explicitly in a cardinal manner implies the corresponding implicit recognition of 3 in an ordinal fashion.
Equally in reverse the explicit recognition of 3 in ordinal terms, implies the corresponding implicit recognition of 3 in a cardinal manner.

Likewise in a similar fashion, explicit recognition in individual terms implies implicit recognition in collective terms and explicit recognition in collective terms implies implicit recognition in an individual manner.

Reflections on Number (1)

Once again we return to the crucially important notion of number to discover that it has laden with a great deal of hidden subtlety which needs to be carefully deciphered before coherent mathematical interpretation is possible.

Let us illustrate for example with respect to the number "2".

1) Now 2 has an accepted quantitative meaning in specific analytic terms.

So for example I identify 2 cars in my driveway, I am using number in this conventional sense.

Thus here 2 = 1 + 1 where the individual units are literally understood as homogeneous, without qualitative distinction (i.e. no unique relationship to each other).
Put another way, this represents the interpretation of the number as an independent entity (integer) in an impersonal individual manner.


2) However 2 equally has a quantitative meaning in general holistic terms. This equates with the dimensional (rather than the base notion of 2). So in the dimensional expression a^b, a is the base and b the dimensional number respectively!

So if I for example identify classes of objects with respect to the stipulation that each contains 2 members (e.g. 2 cars, 2 chairs, 2 names etc,  then I am using 2 in this collective holistic sense where it can apply to any number of object groups (of 2).

Thus the crucial distinction here is that 2 now serves a collective - rather than individual - role in identifying a number property (i.e. 2) that is common to all classes defined in an impersonal collective manner.


In the two examples so far we have defined the number 2 in a quantitative manner (with respect to both its specific (analytic) and collective (holistic) properties.

However we can now equally define 2 in qualitative terms with respect to both aspects.


3) So 2 now is a number with a qualitative meaning in specific analytic terms. We could refer to this quality of 2 as "twoness" which thereby gives the number a unique personal identity.
Now whereas the quantitative counterpart notion of 2 is defined in a cardinal manner so that 2 = 1 + 1, this corresponding qualitative notion is defined by contrast in an ordinal manner.

Thus it is understood here that 2 = 1st + 2nd members (that are  qualitatively distinct).

Therefore whereas the quantitative notion of 2 (as an independent integer) entails no unique relationship between units) the qualitative notion by contrast implies a relationship of interdependence as between units (where each is uniquely distinct).


4) Finally 2 equally has a qualitative meaning in general holistic terms.

So we are now referring to the number 2 once again in a dimensional sense, but where it now is identified in ordinal terms as a number identifier with respect to a collection of groups.

In other words according to agreed criteria we could identify a number of different groups with respect to unique 1st and 2nd members respectively. So in this sense all the groups share the same qualitative identity of "twoness".

Put more simply, numbers representing both base and dimensional aspects respectively, repeatedly switch as between cardinal and ordinal meaning (in a quantitative and qualitative manner).

So again 2 as the base aspect has a cardinal interpretation (in quantitative terms) with a specific application to an independent individual entity.

However 2 also  representing a dimension (power or exponent) has a cardinal interpretation (in quantitative terms) with a holistic application (as applying in common to all instances of 2).

Then 2, again as base aspect, has an ordinal interpretation (in qualitative terms) with application to the two distinct members of an individual group (as 1st and 2nd respectively).

Finally 2 now representing a dimension has an ordinal interpretation in qualitative terms with a holistic aspect (as applying to all distinct instances of two unique members.


Conventional Mathematics however is riddled throughout with a gross form of reductionism, whereby the qualitative aspect of appreciation is continually interpreted in a quantitative manner (indicating a corresponding failure to properly distinguish finite and infinite notions).

Likewise the holistic aspect of appreciation (where number carries a collective sense) likewise is reduced in a merely analytic type manner (with a merely individual interpretation).

Thus instead of the number 2, as in my example, being given at least 4 distinctive meanings (that dynamically interact in experience), in conventional mathematical terms  it is given but a grossly reduced interpretation (i.e.where the qualitative aspect is reduced to the quantitative and the holistic aspect to the analytic).

We will develop these insights further in the next entry.