Versus other paradigms
Versus other paradigms
You need to read more precisely about Kant's phenomenon. There exists no “algorithm” defined below “Intuition”, “Sensation” and “Pure form”. Building an algorithm is exactly what normal thinking paradigm does. Algorithm is the result of a mix of these three different informations. Having the “Phenomenology” approach splits these three different informations and manages each one differently.
Intuition : Kant wrote “In whatsoever mode, or by whatsoever means, our knowledge may relate to objects, it is at least quite clear that the only manner in which it immediately relates to them is by means of an intuition”.
We can replace “our knowledge may relate to objects”, by “the logic applied to objects”. The “logic” can be an answer to “how to use it ?”, “what to do with this object ?”, “how to get it ?”, “how to put it ?”, etc…
Sensation : Kant wrote “The effect of an object upon the faculty of representation, so far as we are affected by the said object, is sensation”.
We can replace “The effect of an object ”, by “the value of an object”. The “value” is the measure of an information of the object, that can be “type is a circle”, “voltage is 22”, “size is medium”, “name is martin”, etc…
Pure form : Kant wrote “I call all representations pure, in the transcendental1) meaning of the word, wherein nothing is met with that belongs to sensation. And accordingly we find existing in the mind a priori, the pure form of sensuous intuitions in general, in which all the manifold content of the phenomenal world is arranged and viewed under certain relations. This pure form of sensibility I shall call pure intuition”.
For Evenja paradigm we can replace “in which all the mainfold….under certain relations”, by “a proposal for a generic way to manage object, using the 7 tasks of evenja's paradigm”. So there is no more “algorithm” but the management of objects is based on “certain relations”. A relation can be what is produced by the object between sensations and intuitions, the “pure form” will manage them correctly as the “relation” is correctly defined.
There is no pre-defined “trajectory of the object”. As explained before, the reality of what produce the objects “sensation” and “intuition” and the “relations” added to the “pure form” will be what some call an “algorithm”. So there is no need anymore to have an algorithm fully doing everything we want… The “pure form” and “relations” will do the job of the algorithm.
The link or as says Kant, the “relation”, is defined by the programmers when they write an end-user functionality. There is no “algorithm” of different relations. The “pure form” defined first, in this case the Evenja paradigm, uses the right “intuition” (logic) and right “sensation” (value) doing only one relation for one functionality. With Evenja, it is not a meta-algorithm, the data where, when and what they are does the “relation” depending on what the end-user functionality wants.
Any “sensation” in the Kant phenomenon explanation. Any object can be associated with any other, based on the “sensation” (value) of an object. Such as the value name=name or name=city or what=what, the relation will be released where, when the what=what can exist. Always A REAL CONDITION !
The reality. As explains Kant, the reality splits objects with time and space, and a lot of suppositions are impossible. So it is more simple to follow the rules of the reality than to build our own algorithm of reality. This fake reality will always forget a special behavior and then bugs.
Like human reality, in perpendicular dimensions having a perpendicular linear monodirectional time dimension.
If somebody knows, I will be happy to know how time is mixed with space. ;)