Barry Smith. Editor Parts and Moments Studies in Logic and Formal Ontology Authors : Wolfgang Kiinne K evin Mulligan (;ilhert T. Null Peter M. Simon~ RllgL'r A. Simon~ Harry Sm ith D is of necessity compatible with a prior inten-tion to do ); of indifference (that a has been murdered is of necessity indifferent to the fact that he would in any case have died of cancer at the moment of his death); of overlapping (of, say, burglary, and trespass); and perhaps also relationships of a kind whereby one element estab-lishes an a priori tendency toward the realisation of another element (an act of promising, for example, brings about a tendency toward the realisation of its content). 15 The goal of providing a completely adequate catalogue of the compo-nents oflegally relevant states of affairs, of their essential possibilities of combination, and of the types of Rechtsverhiiltnissethereby constituted, has been held in common by many of the classic works of German legal theory. 16 For our present purposes it is Jhering's Geist des romischen Rechts17 which is of greatest relevance. Jhering propounds in this work-in complete conformity with the scholastic idea oflanguage as a mirror of the world- what he calls an 'alphabet' of possible elements of Rechts-verhiiltnisse. These elements are to be conceived as being reticulated 22 with entities which are not intrinsically legal (e.g. movements, and other basic actions) in complex ways, corresponding to our intuitions of the juridical world as a conceptually though not materially isolable stratum of reality. A juridical lingua characteristica would make possible the di-rect depiction of these elements as standing in combination with each other and with extra-legal entities in such a way as to constitute integral wholes of varying types. The most important task for any theory of integral wholes is that of providing an account of how the relevant elements are fitted together (the problem associated in the British idealist tradition with the concept of internal relation, and in the writings of Frege with the concept of satu-ratedness). In his treatment of this issue Jhering comes surprisingly close to the solution which was, as we shall see, developed within the Brentano school as part of a general formal ontological theory of part-whole relations. He distinguishes two sorts of component parts oflegal-ly relevant integral wholes, which he designates as elements of /ocaland of abstract applicability respectively : The former can be designated as self-subsistent or concrete legal substances [ RechtskOrperj, for as concrete entities they can occur in our experience without any additional supplement. Examples would be a bill of sale, a [deed specifying a] right of way, a will. The abstract constituents of the alphabet, in contrast, never come into our experience of themselves alone, just as little as does a pro-perty [Eigenschajt], but always in and of specific independent items. Examples are provided by error, invalidity, delay. An error as such, i.e. independently of any concrete Rechtsverhiiltnis, a delay as such, i.e. without any relation to an ac-tually existing obligation, is a practical absurdity; both can occur only as bound up with self-subsistent substances. The abstract elements have an incomparably wider applicability, since they are not bound up with a specific type of relation-hip; error, for example, can occur in relation to a contract, a custom, a payment, a legacy, and so on. The self-subsistent elements, in contrast, relate always to 4uite specific types of relationships. 18 The elements of this alphabet come together, in the world, to make legal complexes, sequences of states of affairs within the orbit of the law (as when, say, an error in a contract causes delay in the execution of some commission, which gives rise in turn to some specific action in the civil courts). Interrelationships of this kind between elements are then mir-rored, in the court, by a parallel intermeshing of linguistic proxies of these same elements in the utterances of the lawyers. The legal drama in which the lawyers are engaged thereby constitutes a picture of the under-lying substantive issue.19 23 1.4 That strand in the history of the theory of wholes and parts which has been most adequately treated in the literature is the theory of exten-sive wholes developed initially by Boole, Peirce, Schroder and their fol-lowers and further refined by Lesniewski and his school and by Ameri-can logicians such as Leonard and Goodman. This work grew out of at-tempts by 18th century logicians and mathematicians to subject to alge-braic treatment the relations amongst concepts or concept-extensions (species-genus relations) and of work on the general theory of magni-tudes by, for example, theGrassmanns, Riemann and Helmholtz. Work on the algebraoflogicevolved in tandem with Cantor's and Dedekind's early investigations in the theory of sets, as well as with work by Frege and Russell on concepts, concept-extensions, functions and relations.20 Unfortunately it is the latter, set-theoretical experiments which have formed the almost exclusive concern of modem philosophical logic. This entrenched position of set theory has been established partly as a result of the fact that the early growth of set/ class/ Wertverlauf theory was associated with the development of many of the most crucial ad-vances in modem mathematical logic. It reflects also the fact that set theory is considerably more interesting from the point of view of the mathematician than the theory of extensive wholes which was, in Schroder's day, its principal competitor. Set theory has indeed subse-quently come to be associated with purely mathematical advances, for example in topology. This mathematical superiority of set theory unfortunately gave rise to the tacit assumption in the minds of philosophers that set theory is also ontologically superior (is possessed of greater descriptive adequacy). And this assumption was reinforced by the fact that the language of sets does indeed possess greater expressive power, even in extra-mathemati-cal contexts, than does the language of extensive wholes. Thus it is im-possible, in Schroderian, to express the distinction between inclusion of, say, the totality of Stagirites in the totality of Greeks, and membership of, say, Socrates, in the same totality, a distinction which is very economi-cally expressed in the language of sets by the distinction between ' C ' and' E '. 21 Nor is it possible to capture in Schroderian the distinction be-tween arbitrary aggregates (say the totality ofleft hands of soldiers in the German army in 1900) and unified wholes in the proper sense (e.g. the German army itself) ; this distinction can be expressed in set-theoretical terms, though only by appeal to assumptions which are prima facie counterintuitive (e.g. that soldiers are sets of their bodily parts). 24 What is certainly not the case, however, in contradiction to the tacit assumption of modern philosophical logic, is that all ontologically im-portant distinctions can be captured - whether naturally or unnaturally - within the set-theoretical framework: the language of sets is not an adequate basis for a lingua characteristica in the sense demanded of a realistic, descriptively adequate, formal ontology. The claim advanced here22 is that it is possible to develop an ontologically more adequate formal language, including as one fundamental component a theory of (extensive and non-extensive) part-whole relations, the underlying logic of which would have a degree of mathematical interest and sophistica-tion at least comparable to those parts of orthodox set theory which are today employed by analytic philosophers, e.g. in work in the semantics of natural languages. We shall have occasion in the sequel to return to this critique of the de-scriptive or representational adequacy of formal-ontological theories founded on a set-theoretical basis. Note that early philosophical propo-nents of set theory such as Russell at the time of the Principles of Ma the-matics were still, in almost all cases, concerned to develop realistic (de-scriptively adequate) formal ontological theories: the E - and c -rela-tions were held to correspond to distinct relations amongst entities exist-ing independently of the theory. Only subsequently, particularly with the gradual recognition of an apparently irremovable arbitrariness in the proposed resolutions of the Russell paradox, did there occur a re-treat to an essentially pragmatic conception of the formal logical ma-chinery of sets, as a device for simulating important (or sometimes mere-ly readily simulable) ontological relations in the world. 23 Philosophical proponents of a theory of wholes and parts, in contrast, even of the com-paratively weak theory of extensive wholes, have retained the classical idea off ormal ontology as a representationally adequate mirror of the world. § 2 Stumprs Theory of Psychological Parts 2.1 The most common objections to the project of a general theory of part-whole relations rest on an illegitimate restriction to some one sense of the term ' part' - usually the extensive sense in which, e.g., one surface or mass is said to be part of a second, more inclusive surf ace or mass. It is then pointed out that the resultant theory is too weak to capture, for ex-25 ample, the distinction between the sense i"ri which Styria is part of Aus-tria and the sense in which the land-area of Au'Stria to the east of Vienna is part of Austriu: or the sense in which 'th' or ' tf are parts of the word ' thoughtful' and that in which ' thought' is a part of this word. Our claim is that a general theory of part and whole can indeed capture such dis-tinctions. To this end however- as already intimated - it is necessary to recognise the extreme generality of the term 'part', a generality within the compass of which the requisite distinctions will be capable of being made. To be more specific, we shall take the term to comprehend not only what we shall call pieces, i. e. detachable or sepa rable pa rts (in a sense of these terms to be made clear below), but also (non-detachable or inse-parable) moments. The notion of moment, of an existentially dependent entity (an entity which, as a matter of necessity, cannot exist except as a constituent part of some more inclusive whole) is an outgrowth of the Aristotelian accident discussed above. It can be distinguished in various forms in the works of many philosophers, even of those who on no occa-sion concerned themselves explicitly with the classical theory of sub-stance and accident. In almost all cases, however, talk. of recognising moments of a thing has been regarded as pertaining not to any structural features on the side of the thing itself, but only to features of our cogni-tive access to it. The notion occurs, in particular. in the psychological writings of the British empiricists, especially in their treatments of the (epistemologi-cal) problem of abstraction.24 Consider, for example, the following pas-sage from Berkeley : They who assert that figure, motio n, and the rest of the primary or original qua li -ties do exist without the mind in unthinking substances, do at the same time ac-knowledge that colours sounds. heat, cold, and suchlike secondary qualities. do not -which they tell us are sensations existing in the mind alone, that depend on and are occasioned by the diffe rent size. texture, and motion of the minute part i-d es o f matter. This they take for an undoubted cruth, which they can demo n-strate beyond a ll exceptio n. Now if it be certain that those ori ginal qualities a re inseparably united with the other sensible qualities, and not, even in thought, capable of being abstracted from them, it plainly follows that they exist only in the mind. But I desire any one to reflect and try whethe r he can, by any abst rac-tion of thought, conceive the extension and motion of a body without a ll othe r sensible qualiti es. For my own part, I see evidently that it is not in my power tu frame an idea of a body extended and moving, but I must withal give it some co-lour or other sensible quality which is acknowledged to exist only in the mind. In short, extension, figure, and motion, abstracted fro m a ll othe r qualities. are in-26 conceivable. Where therefore the other sensible qualities are, there must these be also, to wit, in the mind and nowhere else. (Treatise,§ 10). It occurs also in various treatments of the problem of abstraction by con-tinental thinkers influenced by the British psychological tradition (for instance Lotze, Lipps and Killpe ). At the centre of all such treatments is a view of the concrete/ abstract opposition resting on the idea that con-crete entities are in some sense thinkable or presentable in isolation, ab-stract entities, in contrast, thinkable or presentable only as bound up with or in association with other entities. It was under the combined influence of such psychological views and of the scholastic ideas preserved in classical German legal theory and in the works of philosophers such as Trendelenburg, Herbart, Beneke, Drobisch, Lotze and above all Brentano, 25 that there issued the begin-nings of a systematic clarification of the notions abstract/ concrete, se-parable/inseparable, etc. This crystalised in 1873 in a work whose sig-nificance for the subsequent investigation of the part-whole relation can hardly be underestimated. The work, entitled On the Psychological Ori-gin of the Presentation of Space, was by Carl Stumpf, a student of Bren-tano and Lotze who became one of the pioneers of the discipline of ex-perimental psychology in Germany, making fundamental contributions particularly to the psychology of sound. 26 Stumpf s monograph, which grew out of an unfinished history of the concept of substance, consists of a thorough historical survey and systematic criticism of previous treat-ments of the problem of abstraction in German and British psychologi-cal writings on the theory of visual perception (particularly on the per-ception of space and of spatial relationships), culminating in Stumpfs own proposed resolution of the problem. This appears in § 5 of the work, significantly entitled "The Theory of Psychological Parts". Here Stumpf considers the nature of the relation, in our presentations, be-tween space and what he calls quality (i.e. the qualitative data of visual perception, specifically of colour). That is, he considers "wie sich Raum und Qualitiit in der Vorstellung zueinander verhalten" (Stumpf, 1873, p. I 07). To answer this question, he argues, it is necessary to recognise that mental contents fall into two classes, which he calls self-subsistent and partial contents (selbstiindige lnhalte und Teilinhalte) respectively: Independent contents are present there, where the elements of a complex of presentations couJd also in virtue of their nature be presented separately; partial contents where this is not the case (p. I 09). 27 Thus for example one cannot present to oneself a colour hue without some brightness or other, or a motion without some velocity or other ... and it is evident to anyone who makes the attempt that it is impossible that we could either present to ourselves exten-sion without colour or colour without extension (Joe. cit.). 27 The intensity of a tone is not something indifferent to its quality: the in-tensity cannot be held as it is while the quality varies at will, or is allowed to vanish. The two are "in their nature inseparable, they in some manner compose a total content of which they are merely partial contents" (p. 113). Thus Stumpf s answer to the question how space and quality sich zu-einander verhalten is that they are mutually correlated partial contents, i.e. that they are such that according to their nature they cannot exist in presentations in separation from each other: "some space or other is giv-en immediately with and in every presentation of quality" (p. 115). Mo-ments of colour and extension, or the constituent moments of hue, brightness and saturation in a colour-datum, 28 or the constituent mo-ments of pitch, timbre and loudness in a musical sound, are not self-sub-sistent atoms which somehow become (or as a matter of fact already are) glued or bonded together by association, 29 but entities of a quite new type, perhaps not hitherto investigated for their own sake. This view is not without problems however. For the impossibility of separate presentation, insofar as this can be determined by a given sub-ject or group of subjects, does not of itself suffice to demarcate an objec-tive character of 'partiality' or non-self-subsistence of contents. Whilst, as Stumpf himself recognised, if we succeed in presenting to ourselves two contents in separation, then these are indeed self-subsistent con-tents, "nothing is decided by a lack of success in this regard" (p. 110). A pair of apparently partial contents may in fact be independent contents bound together by deeply rooted associations which could be overcome - if at all - only by protracted mental exercises of a kind not specifiable in advance. This problem is not a trivial one since it was, after all, the impossibility of separate presentation that was used by Stumpf to introduce the no-tion of partial content into his theory. One solution may be suggested by the recognition that 28 however consistently we might present to ourselves, say, Schiller in association with Goethe, or Beethoven in association with a sheet of music, still it never oc-curs to us to predicate the one of the other (p. l 14). That is, we should acknowledge partiality of contents only where we should find it natural (in some sense) to predicate one content of an-other - as is the case where we perceive an accident inhering in a sub-stance. To adopt such a criterion would be to assume, however, that the notion of predication is itself unproblematic : would we, presented with a piece of metal, predicate the character of heaviness of the character of being made of iron, or would we not rather predicate both characters of the underlying substantial object? In the end it is clear that Stumpf does not succeed in resolving this problem. A number of interesting issues are nevertheless raised by this first, halting development of a theory of de-pendent and independent parts: The isolation of the concept of mutually dependent, partial contents is, first of a ll, a fundamental advance over the Humean/ Herbartian atomistic assumptions which had hitherto predominated amongst the-oretical psychologists. It implies that in a certain sense neither sensations of place nor sensations of quality are basic. What is properly basic and really perceived are those unified and unnameable contents which continually change and to which, with these changes in mind, we give names such as red , blue, etc. (op. cit., p. 136) -a view which would indeed subsequently give rise amongst students of Stumpf to a highly successful research programme in the experimental psychology of perception. 30 Secondly, Stumprs analyses immediately suggest a thesis -to which we shall return below - that relations of mutual correlation or interwovenness amongst contents may correspond, at least in some cases, to relations of mutual correlation amongst corresponding exter-nal objects. And thirdly, whilst all examples considered by Stumpf seem to be a matter of mutual or reciprocal correlation amongst contents,31 for exam-ple the two-sided reciprocal correlation between colour and extension, or the three-sided reciprocal correlation between hue, brightness and saturation amongst the constituent partial contents in the presentation of a colour, - his work nevertheless leaves open the possibility of distin-guishing between such mutual correlation and the one-sided correlation 29 typified by the relation of an accident to the substance in which it in-heres. Thus for example there exists a relationship of one-sided depen-dence between the presentation of a motion, on the one hand, and of the moving body on the other (a body which can of course in principle be presented in a state of rest). 2.2 This distinction between one-sided and mutual dependence was first drawn explicitly by Stumpf s teacher Brentano, and the question here arises as to the possibility of influences between Brentano and Stumpf in this regard.32 We know that Stumpf discussed his work on presentations of space with his teacher, who was to advance his own views on these issues in works published only later. Unfortunately it is at this stage almost impossible to determine the extent to which Brentano contributed to the account of partial contents developed by Stumpf. Brentano's work on The Psychology of Aristotle, published in 1867,33 contains passages which have a superficial terminological similarity with Stumpfs 1873; for example II,2 "Von den Seelenteilen ... "and Il,4c "Von der bewuBten Einwirkung des geistigen Teiles auf den sinn-lichen ",but the work offers no evidence that Brentano had at that stage grasped the notions of partial content and of mutual dependence in any systematic way. In Brentano's later works however the notion of one-sided depen-dence can be distinguished as having played a crucial role. Consider, first of all, his theory of inner perception, put forward in Book 2 of the Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt. This rests on a distinction between what Brentano calls physical phenomena (colours, shapes, warmth, cold, odours, and similar formations appearing in the imagination), and psychical phenomena (the seeing of a coloured object, feeling warmth or cold, every judgment, recollection, expectation, inf er-ence, anger, love, hate, desire, act of will, and so on). An inner percep-tion is defined as an act having a psychical phenomenon as its object, an outer perception as one whose object is a physical phenomenon. Bren-tano 's thesis that every consciousness is bound up with a self-conscious-ness can now be expressed in the form: every act of outer perception is bound up with an inner perception of the act in question. A mental state or event which did not meet this condition would not be a 'conscious-ness' at all. But it is not as if - as the terminology of 'inner' and 'outer' perception may unfortunately suggest, - this element of self-conscious-ness is conceived as an additional act which would exist in the mind 30 somehow alongside the original consciousness. It is, rather, a merely ab-... tractly distinguishable moment of the original consciousness, a (one--;idedly dependent) partial act of a type that can of necessity exist only as embedded within such a larger, circumcluding act-whole:14 The second poi nt at which the notion of one-sided dependence can be discerned in Brentano ·s work is in his theory of evidence.35 Brentano claims that the only objects of which we can have an absolutely certain apprehension are psychical phenomena, i.e . the acts and states of our own consciousness. Of these alone can we assert with an absolutely evi-dent knowledge that they are in reality as they appear to be in our per-ception of them. Thus whilst, when we a re perceiving something given as outside us, we cannot have absolute evidence that the object of our r erception is as it seems- we could e.g. be ha llucinating, -we can know with absolute evidence that this and this particular state o f conscious-ness exists, and that it is structured in such a nd such a way. Illusions and hallucinations of a kind with which outer perception is indelibly pla-gued are, Brentano claimed, a lien to the world of inner perception. What he means by th is can be explained as follow : absolute evidence is obtained only if a j udgment (i.e. the psychical phenomenon) and that which i judged (i.e., fo r Brentano, that object whose ex istence is ac-knowledged o r denied), a re somehow united in a single whole which is ava ilable to consciousness in such a way that the correctness of the judg-ment can be gra!,ped directly. Experience tells us that such a unity is im-possible for judgments of outer perception. Consider, however, judg-ments o f renexive self-awareness -; uch as · 1 am thinking' or· 1 hC:1ve a vis-ual image of a red surface ·. Judgmental contents of this sort are, in Bren-tano's view, mere ly abstractly isolahle moments of more inclusive act-wholes (of thinking, having such and such a visual image, etc.). Thus the desired kind of unity between judgment and that which is judged is here so to speak already to ha nd : our experiences of psychical phenomena are already of themselves experiences having the character of immedi-ate evidence. The notion of one-sided dependence is discernible furt her in Brenta-no 's account of the three classes of mental act (of presentation, j udg-ment, and of love or hate/ preference or disa pprova l). 16 Here the struc-ture o f the rea lm of acts is determined hy relations of one-sided depen-dence between the three levels: an act of love or hate is one-sidedly de-pendent upon an act of judgment (of the existence of the thing loved or hated), which is in turn one-sidedly dependent upon a n act of presenta-ti on of that thing. It is as if the act of judgment could be detached from, could exist separately from, a moment of love (though not vice versa), and as if the act of presentation could be detached from the moment of judgment (though not vice versa), love and judgment thereby ceasing, in these successive detachments, to exist. The notion is discernible also in Brentano's treatment of syncategore-matic or synsemantic terms (terms whose meaning is one-sidedly de-pendent upon that of other, categorematic terms). 37 Finally Brentano's theory of double judgments ( Doppelurteile) rests on the same basis. For Brentano the judgments 'this man is mortal' and 'all men are mortal ' contain, respectively, the independent parts 'this man exists' and 'men exist', upon which the remainder of the judgments, which carries the relevant predicative content, is in each case (one-sidedly) dependent. This remainder, not being capable of existing in isolation, is seen as one-sidedly enmeshed, einseitig verjlochten, in the given constituent judg-ments. 38 One-sided rather than reciprocal dependence obtains here in virtue of the fact that predication is seen by Brentano as demanding a logically prior judgment (acknowledgment) of the existence of the pred-icated object, but not vice versa. 39 2.3 Brentano' s approach, in all of the above, reveals the same basic on-tological preference towards a world of (separable or detachable, ab/Osbare) things and their dependent (inseparable or non-detachable) parts.40 His ontology rests on the distinction between what he calls pri-mary and secondary entities. The former are either things (material things : men, musicians, stones, works of sculpture) or souls; the latter -what Husserl would call dependent parts - Brentano would rather con-ceive as fictions to be dissolved by analysis.41 The single important ex-ception to this dominance of one-sided dependence in Brentano's pub-lished writings is his analysis of continua. Brentano views continua as things made up of parts, distinguished from collectives by the fact that the parts which constitute the latter are independent things, where the parts which make up a continuum become independent only when sep-arated from the continuum. Both collectives and continua are to be dis-tinguished from things which are not made up of parts in either of these two senses. Brentano's only clear-cut defence of a case of mutual (in fact two-sided) dependence is to be found in his treatment of boundaries: the existence of the boundary of a continuum depends upon the existence of the continuum and vice versa.42 32 It can thus be said that where Stumprs ontology over-emphasises the role of mutual at the expense of one-sided dependence, Brentano errs by over-emphasis in the opposite direction. Only in Husserl's work, to be treated in more detail below, do we find a recognition of the pervasive-ness of both one-sided and mutual dependence relations. The differ-ence between Brentano and Husserl expresses itself first of all termino-logically: Brentano is interested in detachable (ablosbare), i.e. in thing-like parts, Husserl in dependence or inseparability relations between parts.43 In contrast to Brentano, whose ideas here recall the scholastic onion-model of the relation between a substance and its accidents (the successive skins of the onion conceived as surrounding an ultimate, uni-tary substance not capable of further analysis), -this is seen for exam-ple in his discussion of the various types of mental act, in his theory of judgments, and elsewhere - Husserl recognises that acts, sentences, judgments, exhibit internal structures involving ramified relations of mutual dependence, where no element can be picked out as a thing-like core. Thus whilst in his treatment of judgments Husserl agrees with Brentano that the presence of the logical or objectifying quality of posit-ing (the assertive force) is the indispensable criterion for something's be-ing a judgment (see his 5th Logical Investigation), he modifies Bren-tano's views to the extent of recognising logical or objectifying acts as consisting off our mutually dependent moments (i. e. moments some of which require the existence of others). It is perhaps because Husserl freed himself only gradually from the influence of Brentano's notion of presentation that it was only after the first edition of the Investigations that he rejected the view that sentences contain independent (sub-sen-tential) meanings, i.e. meanings that might in principle make up the content of a complete act.44 Brentano's most explicit employment of the ontology of part and whole occurs in his Kategorien/ehre( 1933), a compilation of writings on Aristotelian ideas dating from 1907. Since an admirable discussion of this work exists already in the literature (Chisholm, 1978), we shall con-tent ourselves here with only a brief presentation. Consider a man standing before a table on which he perceives or imag-ines he perceives an orange. The man may or may not at any given in-stant have before his mind an image of an orange. However the man qua bearer of such an image is, according to Brentano, a whole standing in a relation of one-sided dependence upon the man himself as part. The man himself may exist in separation from ( abgelost von) the man qua 33 orange-presenter - i.e., in more normal terms, the man would not cease to exist should he cease to perceive the orange - though not conversely. Hence, according to Brentano, we have here a case of one-sided depen-dence of the orange-presenter upon the man. Note however that the de-pendent whole is not the result of adding to the independent part some additional, conceptually isolable entity, as is the case within the frame-work of the classical theory of substance and accident. Indeed Brentano proposes a terminological revision, with respect to this theory, accord-ing to which the dependent whole should itself be designated 'accident', accidents in this sense therefore being recognised as including their sub-stances as parts. •s This way of conceiving accidents is not without foundation in Arist-otle's theory of categories. Aristotle distinguishes not only a (concrete or abstract) quality, 1tOW't11~, but also a (concrete or abstract) thus-and-thus qualified thing (or substance), 1tot.6v, both the 1tot.6't11~ and the 1tOt.-6v being listed as categories different from the category of (unqualified) substance (ooala). In post-Aristotelian writings, e.g. in Porphyrius, all categories different from that of substance are classified as accidents. The disadvantage of Brentano's terminology, however, which res-tricts the term 'accident' exclusively to qualified substances, will be obvi-ous. The conceptual pressure exerted by Brentano 's view that there exist only what he calls 'things' (men, oranges, perceivers of oranges, etc.) makes it impossible for him to refer, - except in a contrived and round-about way, - to moments, aspects or qualities of things, and thus for him the realm of entities isolated e.g. in scholastic writings on individual ac-cidents, in Stumprs theory of partial contents, or indeed in the whole corpus of Husserlian phenomenology, becomes inaccessible to scienti-fic investigation.46 Further Brentano's use of the term 'ultimate unitary substance' (letzte einheitliche Substanz), to designate an entity which is contained in all ofits accidents as a part, involves, surely, a metaphysical presumption of some considerable magnitude. How could the existence of such a common part be demonstrated? (Cf. Stumpf, 1939 I 40, vol. I, p. 41). Despite these problems however it is undeniable that Brentano's use of the part-whole relation, and above all his application of the theory of part and whole in his psychological writings, is of lasting importance. The influence of Brentano's work on dependence relations is particular-ly discernible in the writings of Anton Marty (another student of Brenta-no, who had enjoyed a close association with Stumpf in both Wiirzburg 34 and Halle), specifically in Marty's development of the opposition be-tween categorematic and syncategorematic terms.47 Brentano's influ-ence is discernible also in the works of Meinong, Hofler, Twardowslci and Ehrenfels. It is however in the early works of Husserl that the truly decisive generalisations on the basis of Brentano's (and Stumpfs) work are effected. It is possible to follow the development of Husserl's thought from his first scattered discussions of various types of Verbin-dung in the Philosophy of Arithmetic, to criticism and expansion of Stumpfs insights in the .. Psychological Studies on Elementary Logic", culminating in the fully systematic exposition of a completely general theory of wholes and parts in the Logical Investigations. ~ 3 Husserl's 3rd Logical Investigation: The Formal Ontology of the Part-Whole Relation 3.1 Stumpf, as we have a lready seen, drew his examples of dependence relations exclusively from the psychological domain. It was initially in his investigations of the psychology of number that Husserl conceived the idea that such relations, alongside other formal-ontological rela-tions, could be applied completely generally, to all entities and systems of entities whatsoever. Here Husserl's work on functional dependence with his teacher Weierstrass, his discussions on set theory with Cantor in Halle, his study of Schroder's logic and of the Riemannian theory of manifolds, are of importance. 48 Already in the Philosophie der Arithmetik(PdA) of 1891 , Husserl had recognised at least four types of relation amongst parts: (i) the merely kol/ektive Verbindungen (collective combinations) be-tween the separate elements of a group of things tied together only in the weakest possible sense that we think of them as such (e.g. objects on a tray, or on a list) ;49 (ii) purely 'extensive' relations of contiguity, succession, etc., amongst regions of physical space, amongst phases of time, and amongst extensive manifolds and sub-manifolds in other spheres; (iii) relations of the type which exist between Stumpf s psychological parts (partial contents), but which are now recognised as of consider-ably wider scope ; (iv) the so-called 'jigurale Momente' (individual relations connecting geese into flocks, trees into avenues, dots into patterns, and so on) simul-taneously discussed by Ehrenfels in his 1890. 35 Brentano, in his lectures of the period, ref erred to the third type of re-lation as a metaphysische Verbindunf0 (the first type of relation was re-f erred to by Husserl in PdA and in the first edition of the Logical Investi-gations as a 'psychical relation', the second as a 'physical relation'). Metaphysical connections include the relations between the properties of an object, which may exhibit one-sided detachability (as when, for example, the colour of an object loses its lustre) but which are typically a matter of reciprocal interdependence. As Husserl put it (PdA, p. 159), the properties of an object 'constitute a whole of parts which are bound together substantially (which reciprocally interpenetrate )'. 51 We can point out in passing how recognition of the new type of whole which is generated by such reciprocal interpenetration allowed convinc-ing arguments to be marshalled against Herbart's atomistic concept of substance which, in the course of the 19th century, had achieved a posi-tion of some dominance as the official ontology of German psycholo-gists. In def ending his view-which has distinctly Tractarian overtones-that the world consists of a plurality of absolutely simple, atomic sub-stances, configurated together into complexes, Herbart appealed to the identity theory of the copula, i.e. to the view that the 'is' in 'Sis p' is an 'is' of identity. If we interpret this view in what seems to be the most intu-itively acceptable way, then we may say that 'Sis p'is to be given a ca-nonical expression as : Some part (or accident) of Sis identical withp, where 'p' plays the role of a proper name of some accident, feature or determination. 'Socrates is red', for example, expresses the identity of some part of Socrates with (some individual accident) red. Now, Her-bart argues, what is real, the substance of the world, cannot have a multi-plicity of determinations; for let us suppose that' S' denotes such an ulti-mate substance having the distinct determinations Pi and Pi, i.e. in ca-nonical form : part of S, say si, is identical with Pi and part of S, say si, is identical with]Ji. Now suppose si and si are non-identical parts of S. From this it would follow, according to Herbart, that Scan be decomposed into a number of different parts. But then these parts are more ultimate, onto-logically, than S, which contradicts our hypothesis. Hence si and si are identical, from which follows also the identity of Pi and Pi, again con-tradicting the initial hypothesis. Hence we must conclude that what is real is absolutely simple. 52 The weak link in Herbart's argument: the as-36 sumption that an object Shaving non-identical parts s; can be decom-posed or disassembled into separate individual S; , is precisely what is called into question by the recognition of metaphysische Verbindung amongst parts and by the denial of the thesis that every whole is a mere sum of pieces. Brentano acknowledged also a further type of part-whole relation in his early lectures, which he called a /ogische Theilungsverhiiltnis. In echo of Peter of Spain's third and fourth modes of being in (see§ 1.2 above), this is conceived as a relation between moments corresponding to the logical relation of species to genus. A particular instance of red, for ex-ample, is, even abstracting from its spatial extent and leaving aside its constituent hue, brightness, etc., non-simple from the point of view of its logical parts. For in the abstractum red there lies the moment colour. But it is not as if colour is somehow filled out to become red by the adjoining of some further moment. Colour rather specifies itself in red. The latter is colour, and yet is not identical with colour. H 3.2 Whilst at the time of PdA Husserl had no more than a rudimentary theory of part-whole relations as such, he moved progressively toward such a theory in his writings between 1891 and 1900, the year of publica-tion of the I st volume of the Logical Investigations. By this time he was in a position to put forward a perfectly general' a priori theory of wholes and parts, i.e. off orms of connection ( Verbindung) and unity' (Husserl, 1913, p. 131 ), laws valid not only in the field of descriptive psychology (i. e. purely amongst mental contents), but for all objects whatsoever. These laws are presented in a highly compressed form in the 3rd Logi-cal Investigation, a work which is, for all its inadequacies, the single most important contribution to realist (Aristotelian) ontology in the modem period. Its significance was understood by Husserl 's most im-mediate followers- particularly the members of the Munich-Gottingen school of phenomenology (see the work by Reinach translated below) -but this understanding waned amongst subsequent generations of thinkers around Husserl, despite the fact that he himself recommended it to his students as central to the understanding of both the remaining Investigations and of his later phenomenology. s4 It has nonetheless, as we shall see in the sections which follow, exerted a not inconsiderable influence on the thought of the twentieth century. The Investigation begins by quoting with approval Stumprsss defini-tion of partial contents as contents whose nature forbids them to have an 37 isolated and mutually independent existence in our presentations (Stumpf, loc. cit., p. 113 ). Husserl states however that he intends to use this definition only as a starting point for a more precise definition of the concept of dependence, one which will be at one and the same time free of the drawback of relativisation to subjective capacities for presenta-tion (as in Stumpfs original theory) and allow a generalisation of the concept of dependence beyond the purely psychological sphere. To say that a content can be presented 'in isolation' clearly cannot mean that it 'can be freed from al/fusion with coexistent contents, can therefore ultimately be torn out of the unity of consciousness altogether' (LU III, § 5) - for all mental contents are inseparable in this sense; all presentations are presentations against some co-presented background or other. Isolability, Husserl concludes, can only mean something like: capable of being held constant in presentation under conditions of ab-solutely free variation, s6 within the limits set by the nature of the content in question, of all contents associated with it, so that it should indeed in the end, but only in principle, remain unaffected by the very elimination of such contents. This self-evidently entails that the existence of this content in presentation and in consciousness generally is not at all conditioned by the existence of other con-tents, that it could exist, just as it is, even ifthere were in consciousness nothing at all beside it, or even if everything about it should vary arbitrarily, i.e. without principle (loc. cit.). But this implies that the content is in itself such that there is rooted in its nature no necessary interwovenness with other contents. Now a content which in itselfis such that its ideally graspable essence, its intrinsic structure, that which makes it what it is, also 'leaves it uncon-cerned with' all other contents is called by Husserl independent (selbstiindig). A content which in its ideally graspable essence or nature is bound to other contents, which cannot be if other contents are not there together with it, he calls dependent (unselbstiindig).s1 With this shift from talk of 'possibilities of separate presentation' to talk of intrinsic essences or natures (intrinsic structures) of the contents involved, Husserl has eliminated from his definition of dependency all reference to the conscious subject, except incidentally - the conscious subject is someone who may potentially grasp by a process of imagina-tive variation the essences in question.ss And all references to 'differ-ences in mode of presentation' have also been eliminated. Husserl has, 38 in other words, departed considerably from Stumprs (and the traditional, e.g. Berkeleyan) account of independence as signifying that a content is capable of being presented in isolation from other contents. He has moved much more closely to the position of the scholastic real-. ists, to the concept of independence as an objective character of con-tents capable of existing in isolation from other contents. Simply by substituting the word 'object' for 'content' in this account it now becomes possible to effect an immediate generalisation of the de-pendence/ independence opposition beyond the purely psychological sphere to apply directly, in reflection of what Husserl calls a 'universal ontological difference' (§ 9), to all entities whatsoever. Just as a presen-tation of colour cannot exist in isolation from a presentation of space, so a recondliation, say, cannot exist in isolation from a prior disagreement, an answercannot exist in isolation from a prior question, a husband can-not exist without a wife, a sales representative cannot exist without the company he represents and goods to be sold. Such dependence rela-tions amongst parts correspond, we shall argue, to systems of a priori truths.s9 3.3 Husserl's theory of whole and part is a theory which makes room for both independent and dependent parts. We are already familiar with many examples of the former (the items of furniture which make up the everyday world are all of them independent parts-in the sense that each could continue to exist even though all the others should go out of exis-tence). The independent parts of a whole such as, for example, a sheet of glass, coincide with the extensive parts of such a whole as these are de-termined, e.g. by LeSniewskian mereology or by the calculus of individ-uals (or by breaking the sheet of glass into smaller pieces). But it is not as though Husserl, with his distinction between dependent and independ-ent parts, is presenting what is in the end merely a theory of extensive parts of the familiar (mereological) sort, to which is conjoined an addi-tional, in principle dispensable, capacity of recognising particular eso-teric marginal cases of ('non-extensive') parts enjoying logically pecu-liar properties. To make this clear consider, again, the sheet of glass s, which is uni-formly red (has a uniform red-moment- dependent part- r, inhering in it), and is recognisable as being decomposable, e.g. by careful slicing, into two specific smaller sheets, s1 and s2. Clearly in such circumstances r, too, must be recognised as being decomposable into two correspond-39 ing constituent red-moments r, and ri, inhering in s1 and s2 respectively. The same considerations clearly apply equally to non-homogeneously coloured bodies. And they apply further to moments extended not through space, but through time: knighthoods, for example, or diseases, or bonds of wedlock. Thus consider a man m and a woman w joined to-gether by the specific bond (two-place relational accident) b of holy matrimony existing between the two of them across the specific interval of time t. Here again, the bond (unifying moment) b1 existing in some given proper extensive part t1 oft is surely an extensive part or phase of the moment b. According to Husserl, extensive moments, whether spatial or tempor-al, and moments founded on them have the property which no other mo-ment has of being pieceable. Thus the examples given show that even in the superficially non-extensive sphere of dependent parts we are able to establish - effectively by drawing (or recognising) boundaries - exten-sive relations of part to whole, i. e. that there are moments which have pieces (cf. § 17, where Husserl also gives a precise sense to what we have here loosely designated 'extensive part'). Pieces of moments may in turn possess moments of their own, which may in their turn be recognisable as decomposable into further pieces or as the bearers of further systems of moments, and so on, without any generally establishable limit. Husserl's theory of extensive and non-extensive wholes differs from a two-sorted theory (mereology supplemented by the facility of recognis-ing moment-whole relationships) in acknowledging the existence, as it were below the surf ace level of everyday reality, of a hierarchically organ-ised sequence of banks of moments and pieces reticulated amongst each other in complex ways. 60 But that is not all. There is also a certain sense in which moment-whole relations can be established also in strata (in universes of discourse) as it were above the level of everyday reality. To these belong all 'syntactic unities'61 (words, sentences, scientific theories, and perhaps sets, classes, ... ), all of those entities designated by Meinong ( 1891 ; 1899) as objects of higher order, all institutional en-tities, and so on. The head of corporation c, for example, qua head of c, is not a mere piece (independent part), since of course should the re-mainder of the corporation cease to exist then he too (in his capacity as its head) will also pass out of existence. This is not to deny that the mo-ment of cwhich is its head is not-in the relevant interval of time- coin-cident with the independent whole which is the corresponding human being. But coincidence is not identity, as the proponents of an exclusive-40 ly extensionalist ontology - for whom all strata collapse onto a single stratum (the isolation of which is presumed to be somehow unproble-matic) - would have us believe. If we say, with Meinong, that a higher order object such as a melody is founded upon its lower order fundamenta (in this case the individual tones), then this is just to say that these fundamenta constitute a whole of parts which do not merely exist together side by side.62 They are, rather, ravelled together in virtue of the tendency of each tone to set up expecta-tions as to the order of its successors and to consolidate an order in our memory of the preceding tones. The higher order object which is a ses-sion of the Austrian Imperial Council is a whole of parts : statements, questions, answers, orders, standings up and sittings down, ravelled to-gether both by the complex of interrelations between these elements themselves, and by the relations between these elements and events out-side the Council. From this conception it follows, trivially, that two dif-ferent higher order objects (a football team and a submarine crew) may have identical constituents (ravelled together in different ways). And it follows a lso that to dispose of a higher order object such as a family, a philosophical movement, a nation or a culture, it need not be sufficient merely to separate its parts : these parts must also (if this is possible) be unravelled. 3.4 Husserl 's discussion of the upwards and downwards piece/mo-ment hierarchy is in the very important§ 13 of the 3rd Investigation, on "Relative Dependence and Independence". A given visual moment of extension e is, as we have already seen, dependent, within the sphere of mental contents, on a co-perceived moment of colour (or configuration of such moments). The fact that we can distinguish, extensively, consti-tuent e; (by drawing arbitrary boundaries), that we can imagine the re-mainder of e disappearing whilst any given e; is held fix ed in presenta-tion, signifies that the e, are independent, - but only relatively to the whole e. They are not, of course, absolutely independent, since each e; is, like e itself, dependent upon moments outside the realm of visual ex-tent : we cannot imagine a given visual extent remaining fixed in presen-tation whilst a/I visual fi lling (i.e. a ll colour-data) should disappear. Within, and relatively to, the concrete totality of a momentary visual intuition, each portion of our visual field, each concretely filled section of it, is independ-ent; each colour of such a portion, the colour-pattern of the whole, etc., is de-4 1 pendent. And again, in, and relatively to, the whole of our momentary total sense-intuition, the visual field with its contents, the tactual field with its con-tents, etc., are independent, whereas the qualities, forms, etc., whether attaching to whole fields, or to their individual members, are dependent (§ 13 ). Relative to the summative whole words of the English language, the words of this sentence are independent pieces; relative to the sentence itself they are dependent moments. Relative to the whole which is the object-world depicted in a given novel, the characters of the novel are in-dependent pieces; relative to any whole which includes the totality of experiences of readers of the novel, these characters are merely abstract-ly distinguishable dependent moments. Relative to the world as a whole (that is to say absolutely), the Hamburg representative v of a Sao Paolo coffee trading company is independent (the company could cease to exist without this bringing about the annihilation of its representative as an item of the furniture of the world); relative, however, to any whole in which v functions essentially as a representative - e.g. to a complex of events in which v signs contracts, makes commitments, fulfils obliga-tions in the name of his principal, etc., - v is a dependent moment -(should the company cease to exist then this would, of necessity, bring about the consequence that v too, qua agent of the company, would cease to exist).63 This last example suggests a sense in which dependence-relations may occur between wholes which are spatially or temporally disparate, or between wholes from distinct ontological regions. 64 A husband qua husband is dependent upon a certain other human being (his wife), in that should she cease to exist then he too, of necessity and of his very na-ture, would thereby also cease to exist: a husband (master, king, employ-er, slave-owner . .. ) as such cannot exist except in a more comprehen-sive unity which associates him with a wife (servant, subject, employee, slave ... ). 3.5 The types of dependency relations which have been recognised so far include: that type of dependency which holds between a husband and a wife (or equally, for our present purposes, between a claim and a mutually correlated obligation, or between the north and south poles of a mag-net) ; that type of dependency which holds between a higher order whole and its lower order fundamenta (for example, between a sentence and 42 its words, between the natio hungarica and the totality of Magyars, or between the institution of holy matrimony and the totality of wedlock bonds) ; that type of dependency which holds between an answer and a ques-tion, between a reconciliation and a disagreemen~ between the fulfil-ment of a promise and an act of promising, and so on. Without here attempting more than a rudimentary classification, 65 we might instance also the following additional examples of dependency relations: the mutual dependence of the purely (abstractly isolated) psychologi-cal parts of the whole which is a thinking human being, and the purely physical (biochemical) parts of the same whole ; the one-sided dependence of a 10 Mark note qua sum of money upon the relevant readiness to accept distributed across a given population; of the human race qua extant biological species upon a specific system of climatic and other environmental conditions ;66 of the scientific char-acter (originality, rigour, etc.) of the products of a given academic com-munity upon a specific system of economic and institutional rules, cus-toms and conventions, to which its members arc subjected; and so on. In order to be able to express in a ooinpletely general way the charac-ter which is shared by all possible dependence relations, Husserl reintro-duced Mcinong's terminology of foundation, though he endowed it with a different sense: a husband, as Husserl would now express the matter, is founded upon or through or requires foundation by or in a wife (§ 14). Definition: If there is a law of essence that an a as such cannot exist ex-cept in a more comprehensive unity which connects it with a p, then we say that an a requires foundation by a ~ (loc. cit.).67 He then elaborates a series of highly general laws in which insights de-riving from the work of Brentano and Stumpf and from the Aristotelian doctrine of substance and acciden~ from the Boole-Peirce-SchrOder algebra of logic and the theory off ormal manifolds initiated by Herbart and Riemann, and from the discussions of part-whole relations in Bol-zano's W'rssenschaftslehre and in Twardowski's Zur Lehre vom lnhalt und Gegenstand der Vorstellung, are welded together in a single formal ontological system. 43 These laws are expressed in terms of the concept of foundation as de-fined above. We shall quote them in full as a basis for discussions in later papers in this volume. 68 Theorem I: If an a as such requires foundation through a p, then every whole having an a but not a p as part requires a si-milar foundation. Theorem Il: A whole which includes a dependent moment without including as its part the supplement which that moment demands, is likewise dependent, and is so relative to every superordinate independent whole in which that dependent moment is contained. Theorem m: If a is an independent part of (and thus also relative to) b, then every independent part c of a is also an inde-pendent part of b.69 Theorem IV: If a is a dependent part of a whole b, it is also a depend-ent part of every other whole of which bis a part. Theorem V: A relatively dependent object is· also absolutely depend-ent, whereas a relatively independent object may be de-pendent in an absolute sense. Theorem VI: If a and b are independent parts of some whole c, they are also independent relatively to one another. 1 The reader is ref erred to the first of Simons' three papers below for a dis-cussion of Husserl's proofs of these theorems and for a detailed indica-tion of their interrelationships and consequences. In presenting these theorems Husserl is concerned to stress that, despite the vast number and complexity of materially different types of part-whole relation, there exists nonetheless a system off orm.al a priori relationships, both between parts and their circumcluding wholes and amongst the various levels of systems of parts of a single whole, and that these relationships generate a priori laws relating, for example, to the relative nearness and remoteness of parts from each other (§§ 18-20), to the possible struc-tures of temporally ordered wholes(§§ 14, 25), or to the processes of de-composition or piecing of wholes (§§ 17, 25). And he is concerned to stress also that continual tacit appeal is made to such a priori relation-ships in our everyday and scientific talk of different sorts of wholes and 44 parts. The remainder of his Investigation is devoted to the development of the f onnal ontological theory of these a priori relationships and to the provision of sketches of applications of the theory to specific materi-al regions (above all, still in the shadow of Stumpf, to the region of men-tal acts and their contents and, in the 4th Logical Investigation - see § 5 helow-to the region of grammatical part-whole relationships). § 4 The Theory of Material A priori Structures; Phenomenology and Formal Ontology 4.1 'It is evident to anyone who makes the attempt that it is imposible that we could present to ourselves either extension without colour or colour without extension' (Stumpf, 1873, p . 109). This passage, together with the similar passages quoted in § 2 above, points to the existence of an a priori order in the domain of perceptual contents. In marked con-trast to the associationistic elementarism still dominant amongst psy-chologists in Stumpfs day, according to which it should be possible, at least in principle, to establish or disestablish connections between any mental contents whatever, the arguments advanced by Stumpf suggest that there is a (perhaps highly complex) system of a priori structural conditions of possibility amongst such contents.70 This a priori order shows itself most straightforwardly in the relation-ship of three-sided foundation between the specific hue, brightness and saturation of an individual colour-datum, between the specific constitu-ent moments of pitch, timbre and loudness of an individual tone, or be-tween the distinctive features of an individual phoneme.71 Such rela-tionships may be illustrated, in simple cases, as follows:72 a .. ····· .................. ~~ -· - · ....... ~ b c The validity of these abstract decompositions, which were originally discovered by a priori analyses (cf. above all the work of E. Hering),73 45 was overwhelmingly established, with amendments for specific variant cases, by a vast amount of empirical work undertaken in the early, semi-nal decades of experimental psychology. It was demonstrated, from a number of distinct perspectives, that each of the constituent moments that had been distinguished reflected an axis of independent variation in the nature of (a distinct dimension in the geometry of74) perceptual contents of each specific type. The question immediately arises as to whether it would be possible to give corresponding resolutions, i.e. corresponding systems off ounda-tion relations amongst abstractly distinguishable moments, for mental contents of other types, e.g. for the contents - if this is here still an ap-propriate term - associated with acts of volition, with emotions, with mental processes of thinking, judging, inf erring, remembering and so on. Husserl's answer to this question was of course an affirmative one, and indeed Husserlian phenomenology can be most illuminatingly characterised as the working out of the thesis that a priori laws off oun-dation, @ -type analyses, can be provided for al/mental contents, however complex. There are in addition passages in the Logical Investigations which de-monstrate that- at that stage at least-Husserl believed that a priori laws of foundation can ultimately be provided not only for mental contents but for objects in general, including events, actions and processes in the material world. This view was extended to apply to the objects of scien-tific disciplines, of history, of literary theory, and so on, by the members of the Munich-GOttingen circle of phenomenologists in their now sadly neglected contributions to applied phenomenology (see e.g. Schmucker, 1958). Husserl's claims also provoked Stumpf, in his Berlin Academy Lecture "On the Demarcation of Scientific Disciplines" ( 1906a ), to advance a compromise position according to which there are indeed a limited number of what he called Vorwissenschaften, relating to domains - including the domain of sense-contents - which are char-acterised by subjection to a priori foundation relationships, but that sciences proper, except insofar as they rest on principles derived from the given Vorwissenschaften, have to deal with non-a priori features of the world which can be determined only empirically.75 It is our business in this essay only to point out in broad terms the na-ture and influence of the theory of dependent and independent parts de-veloped in particular by Husserl. We shall therefore seek neither to estab-46 lish the rights and wrongs in this specific methodological issue, nor to t:xamine in detail Husserl's claim to have established, in his investiga-tions of the phenomenological structure of conscious experience, a vast new realm of a priori relationships.76 It will be interesting, however, to survey some of the ways in which the theory made itself felt in the devel-opment of Husserl's thought, taking as our basis the hypothesis that, as a matter of fact and of principle, all propositions of phenomenology are expressions of what we shall call material a priori connections between moments,77 are capable of being perspicuously represented within the framework of the theory of part and whole. This applies first and foremost to the individual analyses of pheno-menology, i.e. to the analyses of acts of perception, of memory, of predi-cation, and so on. It can however be extended also to some of Husserl's metaphysical claims, for example to the claim that all regions of being are dependent (i.e. are one-sidedly founded) on the region of transcend-ental consciousness.78 Consider also two important criticisms Husserl made of Kant: that he conceived of the faculties as pieces (Stucke) ; and that he failed to see that every genuine a priori proposition, whether an-alytic or synthetic, becomes counter-sensical (yields Widersinn) when negated.79 In the first of these criticisms Husserl is drawing attention to the fact, missed by Kant, that despite the apparent transience and plasti-city of the phenomena of consciousness, there is nevertheless an a priori system of intrinsic interrelationships amongst these phenomena which is capable of being disclosed. An act of joy, for example, presupposes an act of grasping a state of affairs of a specific type; an act of memory pre-supposes a temporally ordered sequence of acts in which it is rooted in a quite specific way, and so on.so The phenomenologist, independently of his metaphysical position, recognises that acts of consciousness do not form a self-contained re-gion ( Weltstuck) isolated from the region of external objects (including living bodies), from the region of human action, or from the region of linguistic structures, but are, rather, reticulated with these in myriad ways. Hence his analyses will typically be directed towards more than one single region; the material a priori Sachverhalte that he discloses will often straddle the boundaries between regions.s1 They are, never-theless, objective constituents of reality. si Their aprioricity (or intelligi-bility) is not the result of any conceptual, linguistic or grammatical con-vention. This implies an ontological approach to the problem of the a priori, - an approach which stands in opposition to the logico-linguistic 47 approach, inspired above all by Frege, which has come to be accepted as orthodoxy by Anglo-Saxon philosophers. Whilst for Husserl the a priori of judgment and the a priori of Sach-verhalte are viewed as two sides of a single coin, 83 his disciple Reinach viewed the linguistic a priori as derivative of the material a priori. That 'orange lies between red and yellow in the order of similarity' is an a priori proposition, results from the fact that orange, red and yellow are themselves thus ordered in the region of colours. 84 Reinach argued in-deed, particularly in his On the Theory of the Negative Judgment (translated below) that this priority of the Sachverhalt over correlated sentence, judgment or proposition implies the need for a new, ontologi-cal foundation of logic. Mutually contradictory judgments or proposi-tions, for example, are mutually contradictory, according to Reinach, in virtue of the ontological incompatibility of the corresponding Sachver-halte. 85 The reconciliation of Hans and Erna is founded upon their (tempor-ally prior) conflict of opinion or conduct; the later event is, as a reconcil-iation, of necessity bound up with (its existence is dependent upon) the earlier. 86 The three moments founded in Fritz which consist in ( l) his re-futing Popper, (2) his writing a book, and (3) his going to the library every day form, with Fritz himself, a whole whose structure is such that (3) is the meansfor(2) as end, where in its turn (2) is the means for(l) as end. The complex temporally extended moment which is the daily visit to the library is such that it is essentially possible for it to found the writ-ing of a book. It is, in contrast impossible for the writing of a book to found the visit to the library, as is reflected in the absurdity of Fritz goes to the library every day by writing a book 87 4.2 The fact that the world, in all its strata, is thus criss-crossed with a multifarious system of material apriorifoundation relations has an im-portant consequence for the theory of individuation. Traditionally the assumption has been that it is the spatio-temporal coordinates of an ob-ject, event or process which are to be taken as yielding its principle of in-dividuation. 88 If, however, every object is, independently of any relation it may bear to the co-ordinate systems of space and time, to be recog-nised as traversed also by networks of essential interrelationships of other kinds (depending on its own specific nature), then it may prove that space and time fail to provide sufficient conditions for individua-48 tion: Wolfgang's jumping up and down in afrenzyand his getting warm may occupy an identical spatio-temporal extent, but in such a way as to be embedded in distinct systems of surrounding Sachverhalte.89 Such objects are, in the terminology introduced above, coinddent but not identical. The way in which the ci>ncept of spatio-temporal location ap-plies to the objects of scientific disciplines (phonemes, molecular struc-tures, animal species, ... ) differs from the way in which the concept ap-plies to the medium-sized durables in a speaker's perceptual environ-ment, and this differs in tum from the way in which the concept applies to institutional and cultural artefacts such as legal persons, joint stock companies, brands of coffee. 90 These ideas, which Husserl regarded as 'a first decisive step in the division of a priori ontologies'91 are taken up again in his later writings on regional ontologies. 92 There are many different types of unifying relations, both within a single object- relations which constitute that object into a relatively iso-lated, integrated whole, 93 - and between objects - relations of causali-ty, 94 for example, or of submission or respect. Systems of unifying rela-tions within an object correspond to predicatively formed Sachverhalt-complexes; systems of interobjectual unifying relations generate net-works of relational Sachverhaltewhich rest, in the end, upon purely for-mal (content-less) relations of foundation. As Husserl puts it: "Alles wahrhaft Einigende ... sind die Verhaltnisse der Fundierung ". 9s That is, all that is truly unifying are relations of foundation. Such a content-less foundation is necessary, since otherwise the classical infinite regress - familiar from the Third Man argument, from the work of Bradley, Russell, Stout, et al., on internal relations,96 or from Bergmann's de-fence of his nexus of instantiation97 - is threatened. Suppose a and b stand to each other in the external relation r (not a relation of founda-tion). Then further relations, r' and r", must exist to connect a to rand r to b respectively. Now either r' and r" are ultimate relations of foun-dation or again further relations r"', etc., are needed to colligate these with their respective relata. Foundation relations put a stop to this reg-ress, since only contents can have a foundation, not foundation rela-tions themselves. 98 The logic off oundation is used by Husserl not only in the Investiga-tions but also in his later works, for example as an indispensable means of displaying the structure of inner time, 99 of material objects, 100 of the sensory plenum, 101 and in his theories of pure grammar (discussed in§ 5 below). Here we shall concentrate on his employment of the theory in 49 giving an account of the structure of mental acts, including (linguistic-ally borne) acts of predication. As for Brentano, so also for Husserl, mental acts may exhibit a pecu-liar many-layered or stratified structure. Thus: The subject-member of a categorical asserting is an underlying act, a positing of a subject, on which is built the positing of a predicate, its attribution or denial. Just so the antecedent of a hypothetical assertion constitutes itself in a clearly de-marcated part-act, on which is built the conditioned positing of the conse-quent ... On such a composite act (whose members may in tum themselves be composite) a new act may be built, e.g. an act of joy built on the taking in of a state of affairs, a joy about that state of affairs. The joy is not a concrete act in its own right, and the judgment an additional act alongside it: the judgment is ratherthe founding act for the joy, it determines its content, brings to realisation its abstract possibility - for without some such foundation (in the strict sense of our 3rd Investigation) there can be no joy at all (LUY,§ l 8).102 The concept of stratification was most fully exploited, within the pheno-menological movement, by Roman Ingarden, particularly in his theory of the literary work of art ( 1931).103 An act, according to Husserl, possesses a matter and a quality. The act-quality stamps the act as a judgment- and so involving positing - or as a mere presentation, as an emotional act, an act of doubt, etc. The act-matter is simply the content of the act which determines it as a present-ing of this, as a judging of that, etc. (LU V, § 20). According to Husserl, the act-quality is undoubtedly an abstract moment of an act, something that would be utterly unthinkable detached from all matter. Or should we perhaps hold an experience possible which would be a judgment-quality but not the judgment of some definite matter? The judgment would after all thereby Jose its character as an intentional experience, a character which evidently belongs to it essentially. The same wilJ hold of matter. A matter that was not matter for presentation, nor for judgment, etc., will be deemed to be unthinkable (toe. cit.). Thus the distinction of matter and quality is a distinction amongst mutu-ally founding act-moments, and that every act has both matter and qual-ity can be asserted as a material a priori truth. Part-whole relations enter into Husserl's account of the coherence of series of acts and partial acts and into his account of the way these coin-cide or conflict with the objects or states of affairs toward which they are directed.104 They enter, in particular, in his account of the 'mutual 50 belongingne&s' of signitive acts of empty intention and the intuitively filled acts in which they find their fulfilment (LU VI, § 8), in which, that is to say, 'the intentional essence of the act of intuition gets more or less perfectly fitted into the semantic essence of the act of expression' (loc. cit.). 105 We shall return again to this logic of fitting below. Every act, as a matter of a priori necessity, has a moment of fulfilment of some specific degree. It is clearly important to note that fulfilment may be 'more or less perfect' - may, indeed, be totally imperfect, when an act of signitive intention is wholly frustrated by a conflicting intuitive content. Typically it is partial fulfilment (and therefore sometimes also partial frustration) with which we have to deal. An intention can be ful-filled in an act which contains either more or less than its fulfilment (in the sense of total agreement) would demand. The fulfilling act may offer merely a part or moment of that total content which would be required to achieve a perfect fitting, or it may off er an object or state of affairs which itself properly includes as part or moment the object of the origi-nal intention (cf. LU VI, § 12 which contains a valuable discussion of the syntheses involved in partial fulfilment). Perfect fulfilment is possible in virtue of the fact that wherever simple acts (of, say, perception or judgment) are interwoven into more complex acts (of joy, surmise, doubt, questioning, wishing, etc.), corresponding interweavings are established also on the object-side amongst the intend-ed objects and states of affairs of the corresponding acts and part-acts. That total state of affairs the intuitive grasp of which fulfils, a hypotheti-cal judgment 106 has an objectual antecedent-consequent structure corre-sponding to the logical antecedent-consequent structure of the judg-ment itself. A wishful intention finds its fulfilment only when a mere presentation of the thing wished for becomes transformed into a corre-sponding perception (LU VI, § 13, and cf. Duncker, 1941 ). There are, therefore, manifold ways in which acts may be combined into other acts (and correspondingly manifold ways in which objects may be combined into higher-order act-correlates). Yet whilst the briefest consideration shows that in the ways in which acts are interwoven with each other or are founded upon underlying acts which open up the possibil-ity of their realisation there are striking differences, the systematic investigation of these differences ... is as yet hardly in its beginnings (LU V § 18). In particular the formal ontological theory of fitting (of part-acts into to-tal acts, or of part-objects into total objects, or of isolated cognitive 51 endeavours into the totality which is a scientific theory: see the essay by Willard below) has been denied attention by mathematicians and for-mal ontologists to the benefit of other, related yet distinct formal-ontological disciplines. 107 4.3 The context in which whole-part theory is treated in Experience and Judgment differs from that of the lnvestigations.108 Husserl here takes up again the problem of the relations between acts (or series of acts) and their objects (qua act-correlates}, and sets out a detailed account of the interrelations between i) the phenomenological structures of series of acts and partial acts in which something is made thematic, ii) the logical form of propositions in which this being-made-thematic is expressed, iii) the ontological form of the objects and object-parts involved there-with. But it is for the sake of the theory of pre-predicative (perceptual) and predicative explication that this account is provided. Wie diese Sachen sich zueinander verhalten, that is, how the phenomenological, logical and ontological features of our experience complement and constrain each other, is elucidated as part of a general theory of the basis and role of predication in experience. Objects are thematised for the sake of predication: the objects serve as substrates for the determinations brought into play through acts of judgment. The distir.ction between substrate and determination shows itself at first as pure-ly relative. Everything that affects and is objective can just as well play the role of object-substrate as that of object-determination or explicate. And just as we can, oontinuously and at ever higher levels, make explicates independent and thus make them into substrates ... in the same way we can also oolligate every object, every autonomous substrate, with other objects, and then make the oollection as a whole into a theme, enter into its members by explication, in this way exhibit-ing the whole by determining it, so that each of the formerly independent ob-ject-substrates henceforth acquires the character of explicate (E & U, § 9). It is however possible, by appeal to the concept of mediate and immedi-ate part elaborated in LU III, to recognise not only a relative distinction between substrate and determination, but also absolute substrates (im-52 mediately experienceable independent wholes) and absolute determi-nations (dependent moments which appear only as such).109 Husserl also discusses the distinction between the 'is' of predication (' a is triangular'; 'a is an instance of the species triangularity') and the •has' of judgments such as' a has triangularity'. A predicate may corre-spond to either a moment or a species.110 Not every moment, however, corresponds to a predicate. The scope of 'moment' is, in other words, much greater than that of 'property' understood in the sense familiar to analytic philosophers as the sort of entity to which a predicate expres-sion can correspond. Examples of moments which are not properties in this sense include first of all the dynamic moments discussed in § 1.2 above. But they include also certain static moments; for example, the edge of a material thing, or its total surf ace. In general, every boundary is a dependent part of the object it bounds (in virtue of the fact that it cannot be removed from the object in such a way that two separate pieces are thereby created). Yet a boundary is not a property of the ob-ject it bounds. One possible view suggested by Husserl (E&U, § 32a), would be to regard the boundary as in some sense a non-immediate property of its object. Thus the specific individual extendedness or spa-tial Gestalt (or extendedness-distribution over time) of an object is an immediate property of that object. If, now, we can regard this specific individual extendedness as having as its immediate properties the rele-vant boundaries (edges, surf aces, etc.), then the latter become recognis-able as mediate properties of the original object. 4.4 We conclude this section with some remarks concerning the inno-vations of Husserl's work in whole-part theory. These innovations cen-tre around the recognition on Husserl's part of ontological structure; re-lations off oundation are seen not, as in Stumpf or Twardowski, as ex-clusively a matter of relations amongst mental contents, nor, as in Schlick and Wittgenstein, as a matter of grammar. They are, rather, ne-cessarily all-pervasive, extending through all material ontological re-gions, including both the linguistic and the psychological. More specifically, we can identify the following advances made by Husserl over the Aristotelian theories of parts and wholes, including those developed by Stumpf and Brentano, that had preceded him: 1) the replacement of conceivability restrictions on mental contents by ontological relations holding independently of conceivability (inde-pendently of all cognition); 53 2) the recognition of whole-part theory as a formal ontology (apply-ing to all matters and thus note. g. to mental contents only), a formal on-tology distinct from and more inclusive than formal logic (cf. LU IV, § 14; cf. also Smith, 1981 a); 3) an account of the piecing of moments of extension and of the radi-cal differences between moments of extension and other moments (Brentano comes close to making the same distinctions in his 1978); 4) an account of what a formal, as opposed to a material concept is; recognition that foundation is a formal concept; 5) an elaboration of example-domains for whole-part theory to in-clude both bi- and multilateral foundation relations. Where, in tradi-tional discussions of the synthetic a priori, the focus has been almost ex-clusively on propositions of the form •If xis P then xis Q' (that is, on propositions expressing relations between predicates holding of a single object), or universalisations thereof, Husserl recognised the ubiquity of synthetic a priori relations amongst object-pluralities (for example, amongst the specific hue, brightness and saturation of a given colour); such relations pose crucial problems for the traditional approach, even in its modem semantic formulation, since they may involve objects fall-ing under no common determinable (cf. Husserl on disjunct parts, LU III,§ I, esp. 1st ed.). 6) the emancipation of philosophical ontology from the metaphysi-cal dichotomy of atomism/ holism (as propounded by, respectively, Herbart and Wittgenstein, and Spinoza and Bradley); 7) the development of a formal ontology of meanings: where, in the Tractatus, meaning (sentence sense) and Sachverhalt have an identical formal multiplicity, in the Logical Investigations meaning and Sachver-halt merely have the same sort of multiplicity, i.e. both involve founda-tion relations; 8) the extension of the theory of wholes and parts by means of a logic of fit, to describe exemplification and verification (fulfilment, f rustra-tion) of sentences (sentence-using acts): epistemology becomes a de-scriptive science (LU VI); 111 9) a description of what it is for an object to be a simple object within some cognitive/theoretical frame, avoiding the pitfalls mentioned in (6), (E&U, § 29). The ontological structure, both formal and material, uncovered by Husserl has been obscured to philosophers working within the analytic tradition primarily in virtue of the unargued identification of the formal 54 with the formal logical. Once the distinction between formal logic (i.e. formal theory of meaning-connections) and formal ontology (formal ohject-theory) is clearly drawn, then it becomes possible to recognise al-!\O material connections both amongst meanings and amongst ob-jccts.11 2 It has been part of our purpose here to demonstrate that there is nothing intrinsic to the analytic method that should impede the recogni-tion of such structure and therewith the adoption of Husserl's view that the formal (matter-independent) relations of part to whole are capable of founding a general and non-trivial ontological theory of the struc-tures exhibited not only by mental acts and their contents, by obser-vables and by linguistic complexes, but also, in principle, by the objects of every scientific discipline. As a partial illustration of this claim we now turn to an area where Husserl's theory has already exercised considerable influence, and where there is good reason to think that the theory will sustain further exploitation : the formal study of meaning in logic and linguistics. § 5 The Influence of the Logical lnYestigations on Logical Grammar and Linguistics. Husserl and LeSniewski Qu'en la cort Grammaire a plus d ' angles qu'il n'a en Logique de jangles Quaren toute science est gars mestres qui n 'en-tent bien ses pars. from Henri d' Andeli , La Bataille des Sept Ars. 5.1113 Husserl's theory of wholes and parts, as we have seen, embodies many insights to be found also in work in contemporary psychology and legal theory. In very few cases however can we talk of a substantial influ-ence of Husserl 's theory on the main stream of either psychology or juris-prudence. We have to deal , rather, with shared concerns and tendencies deriving from common roots in t 8th and 19th century Austro-German thought. The case is different with respect to logical grammar and lin-guistics. Husserl's application of the theory of wholes and parts to the problem of independent and dependent meanings in the 4th Investiga-tion decisively influenced Lesniewski 's seminal work in the field of what is today called categorial grammar; and it was taken up also by Aj-55 dukiewicz and other Polish logicians, whose work has in turn influenced Anglo-Saxon logicians of the last three decades.114 It is perhaps worth noting however that the theory of mereology, which represents Les-niewski' sown attempt to formalise the relationship of part to whole, 115 reveals little influence of the Logical Investigations, being essentially a logically sophisticated variant of the Schroderian calculus of domains. It does not however derive from Schroder, 116 but from Lesniewski' sown attempts to develop an alternative to the approach to the foundations of mathematics based on classes or propositional functions propounded in Whitehead and Russell's Principia Mathematica. Lesniewski studied philosophy in various German universities before taking his Ph.D. underTwardowski in Lw6w in 1912, having developed in particular a deep interest in Marty's philosophy of language. (Les-niewski at one point conceived the project of translating and writing a commentary on Marty's 1902; see Surma, 1977 .) He discovered modern symbolic logic through his reading in 1911 of Lukasiewicz's early mono-graph on the principle of contradiction in Aristotle.117 According to Les-niewski, Russell's paradox rests on an equivocation in the concept of class. We can express his point as follows: we distinguish, in a manner reminiscent of Frege in the latter's review of Schroder, 1890/ 1905, the collective from the distributive concept of class. 118 Something is a mem-ber of the distributive class of ex.' s if and only if it is an ex.: thus 'a is a mem-ber of the distributive class of cx.'s' is, for Lesniewski, just a long-winded way of saying 'a is an ex.'. By contrast, a member of the collective class of cx.'s need not be an ex.. A collective class is what Russell had earlier called a c/ass-as-one(Russell, 1903; see also§ 1 of the 3rd essay by Simons be-low), and what Leonard and Goodman were later to call a fusion. To take an example used by Lesniewski, the line AB is divided into seg-ments by the points C and D in the diagram below: A c D B I I I I In the distributive sense, the segments AD and CB form a class which has neither the whole AB nor the segment CD as members, whereas in the collective sense the class consisting of AD and CB is identical with the whole line AB and also has the segment CD, among others, as mem-ber. The collective sense of 'member', then, is simply that of '(proper or 56 improper) part'. In this sense, as Frege had pointed out earlier, and as Russell held for classes-as-one, there is no question of the existence of such a thing as an empty class. Lesniewski also incidentally rejected the concept of an existing empty class even for the distributive notion of class, as indeed did Russell : the class of a 's exists, according to Les-niewski, if and only if there is at least one a. It is clear now why Lesniewski rejected the formulation of the Russell paradox. According to Lesniewski's collective conception of class, every class is a member (i.e. a part, but not of course a proper part) of it-. self. Hence no class is not a member of itself. Hence there is no such ob-ject as the class of classes which are not members of themselves, by the principle ruling out empty classes, and since Russell's argument de-pended on the assumption that there is such a class, then, according to Lesniewski, the appearance of paradox vanishes. If, on the other hand, by 'class' is meant the distributive concept, then the only classes which are members of themselves are singletons, i. e. a E a is true if and only if there is exactly one a. So the class of classes which are not members of themselves will not exist unless there are at least two objects, in which case it is identical with the class of all the (two or more) objects there are, and consequently not a member of itself. It is clear that in adopting a view of classes as concrete entities, LeS-niewski is subscribing to a view wholly alien to the later, Frege-Peano concept of a class as an abstract unit. He is here closer in his attitude to that of Schr<>der or the early Russell. However, LeSniewski admired Frege's formal work more than he admired that of Russell and White-head, which he considered sloppy in its use of definitions.119 He conse-quently developed his own formal theories to explicate the concept of collective class, and these he used in his analysis of the Russell paradox. The first axiomatic treatment of mereology, initially called by LeSniew-ski the theory of manifolds, appears in Lesniewski, 1916, where, al-though the theory is not expressed in a wholly formal way, the treatment is nevertheless rigorous. It is based on the notion of proper part, taken (correctly) by Lesniewski as the most intuitive idea of the theory, and contains four axioms, defining on the way the concept of class or com-plete collection. This early, slightly inelegant, treatment was replaced later by axio-matic systems based on single notions. Lesniewski himself produced systems based on 'ingredient' (i.e. proper or improper part) and the bi-nary functor '- is outside ... ' ; while later workers have produced sys-57 terns based, e.g. on '-overlaps .. .' (Lejewski, 1954), or indeed on the monadic predicate '-'s are discrete'. 120 Although mereology was the first formal theory developed by Les-niewski, it is based on principles valid for propositional logic and the logic of noun-expressions, which were developed next. The logic of noun-expressions is called by Lesniewski ontology. as it is conceived as a logic of the copula is.121 Ontology in turn presupposes protothetic. Les-niewskj's propositional logic, which contains variable functors and quantifiers binding both functorial and propositional variables. Thus Lesniewski 's logical systems of protothetic, ontology and mereology • were developed by him in the reverse order of their order of logical pri-ority. Each of these formal theories is couched in a language which con-forms to rigorous grammatical preconditions on what is formally ac-ceptable. These are stated in the extensive terminological explanations and directives which accompany Lesniewski's presentation of the sys-tems. The expressions of each system have a structure readily and ex-haustively describable in the terms of a categorial grammar having as its basic categories sentence and name(the latter applying only to ontology and mereology, not to protothetic). Derived or functor categories are de-fined in terms of these, expressions of functor categories being in each case one-sidedly dependent on the corresponding argument expres-sions.122 This grammatical sensitivity on Lesniewski's part was at least to some extent a result of the impression made on him by Husserl's 4th Logical Investigation with its description of the ideal of a pure grammar. Les-niewski's principles were codifield in Ajdukiewicz, 1935. Where both Husserl and Lesniewski spoke of meaning or semantic categories, sub-sequent developments of the same ideas have tended to concentrate on the more tractable issues of syntax. 123 Because of the differences between the underlying logical syntax of Lesniewski's mereology and of the calculus of individuals of Leonard and Goodman, the two systems are not directly comparable. It is how-ever generally acknowledged that they cover the same subject-matter in much the same way. Both, for instance, are extensional, and both delib-erately eschew any commitment to universals, sets or other abstract enti-ties. One difference is that Lesniewski's three theories are very clearly demarcated from each other: the general logic of propositions preced-ing that of existence and identity, and this in turn preceding the general 58 theory of whole and part. This clear division is obscured in Leonard and Goodman by their definition of identity in mereological terms. The Lesniewski system has proved to be a durable object of investiga-tion. It can be interpreted in and is thus consistent relative to protothetic. The fact that it can be approached from many different directions sug-gests that it has an intuitive solidity shared by systems such as classical and intuitionistic logic and the S 4 modal system. The question remains as to its interpretation, and the extent to which it can be considered the logic of part and whole. One problem is that it can be extended in more than one way. A tom is tic mereology (Sobocmsk.i, 1971) assumes that every object contains at least one atom, i.e. an object whose only part is itself, whereas atomless mereology asserts that every object has a proper part.124 Each of these systems can be developed on its own terms, and the atomistic hypothesis is known to be independent of the principles of general mereology. The question as to whether atomistic or atomless mereology represents the world more adequately appears on the face of it to be an empirical one, although it is far from clear as to how it could be empirically resolved. It could be suggested however that the atomistic hypothesis is one which will have to come up for consideration by any formal theory of part and whole, so this is not a problem peculiar to Lesniewsk.ian mere-ology. However, it is customary for logicians influenced by Lesniew-sk.i's thinking in logic to regard his logical theories as distinguishing themselves from their rivals in being true of the world in which we live. This means that the empirical question is especially pressing. A theory which is purely formal in the sense of Husserl, however, is one for which the question of its adequacy to the world does not as yet arise, for as a purely formal theory its theorems are valid irrespective of how the world should be. Given this attitude to formal logic, it is clear that neither atomistic nor atomless mereology can be a purely formal theory, but must contain an admixture of something empirical. As for the general mereology contained in both the atomistic and atomless variants, it ap-pears to be an open question whether it is a logical theory. 125 A perhaps more difficult problem concerns the basic logical princi-ples presupposed in Lesniewsk.ian mereology, in particular its exten-sionalism. For Lesniewski, there cannot be two distinct propositions which could have the same truth value under alJ circumstances. There are thus, according to this point of view, only four possible functions of a single proposition, namely the four truth-functions. Similarly the the-59 ory of existence and identity found in ontology has no room for necessi-ty or essentialistic notions, such as are needed to explicate the idea of de-pendent and independent parts in Husserl's sense. While the laws of ex-tensionality used within Lesniewski's formal systems do greatly facili-tate inference, they are not ontologically neutral, since they in effect deny the existence of e.g. distinct but co-extensive properties, or distinct but equivalent propositions or states of affairs. Such an extreme form of extensionalism would today find few supporters. However, the un-doubted solidity of the achievements of Lesniewski and his followers suggests that the extensional whole-part theory first elaborated by him is a true theory, even if it turns out to be insufficiently rich for all uses. 126 S.2 The core of Husserl's argument in the 4th Investigation is that the G -model of n-sided foundation can be applied to grammatical wholes, and indeed to linguistic wholes in the widest sense, including meanings. This is held to yield, first of all, a precise explication of the distinction between categorematic and syncategorematic linguistic cate-gories, i.e. between those linguistic units (noun-phrases, complete sen-tences, etc.) which can stand alone as meaningful utterances of various types (see Heinrich, 1910), and those which 'stand in need of comple-tion' by linguistic units of other specific types: which cannot exist in a meaningful utterance except in a more comprehensive unity which con-nects them with units of those given types. It is held ultimately to yield a system of purely formal distinctions amongst different types oflinguis-tic units according to the types off oundation relation and supplement which they involve. The sentential negation functor it is not the case that .. . , for example, becomes recognised as a moment standing in a re-lation of one-sided dependence upon the category sentence; the nomi-nal connective and as a moment founded one-sidedly upon the category pair of names; the sentential prefix if as a second-order moment founded mutually upon a sentential then, the compound moment there-by constituted being in its tum one-sidedly dependent upon a pair of sentences; and so on.127 Husserl argued that it would be possible, with the aid of mathematics, to develop a purely formal theory of all possible foundation relations amongst all possible categories oflinguistic unit. 128 This need not imply that any actually existing language need possess examples of every pos-sible mode of linguistic connection. We can imagine, for example, a Ian-60 guage in which there are no independently meaningful sub-sentential units (in which all sub-sentential foundation is reciprocal foundation). For such a language there could be no categorial grammar (function-argument grammar) in the usual sense, since the opposition between ba-sic and functor category could not be made. It follows from this however that the criticism of Husserl's idea of a 'pure logical grammar', - a criti-cism encouraged, perhaps, by the parochiality of the examples Husserl chooses-that it in some sense represents an imposition of lndo-Euro-pean categories upon other languages, 129 is surely misplaced. Indeed the universal generality of Husserl's pure grammar is shown by the fact that it can be applied even to the diagrammatic languages employed in chemistry, choreography, and elsewhere (as well as to the formal lan-guages of mathematics and mathematical logic). The distinctions and arguments presented in the 4th Investigation do not by any means exhaust those of Husserl's ideas which are of direct re-levance to logical grammar. There is a wealth of material in his hitherto neglected early papers and reviews on logic,130 in writings collected in the Husserliana edition of the Philosophie der Arithmetik, and in the ap-pendix on syntactic forms and stuffs to Formale und transzendentale Logik.131 Thus Husserl's early manuscripts132 contain a startling antici-pation of the Tractarian account of the role of operations in logic and arithmetic and of formal concepts (cf. Mulligan, 1980f.). The distinc-tions between Unsinn and Widersinn and between formation rules and laws of transformation are clearly and repeatedly expounded by Hus-serl in his writings from the Logical Investigations onward, 133 and these writings include also an account of modification used by Husserl to ex-plain such phenomena as nominalisation and the use/mention opposi-tion. u• Whilst Husserl's work on modification and his distinction be-tween syntactic forms and syntactic cores have been ignored by most contemporary logicians, close analogues to these distinctions have played an important role in linguistic accounts of different levels of meaning and linguistic structure, particularly in phonology and syn-tax. ns S.3 Husserl's Investigations, including the arguments against psychol-ogism presented in the Prolegomena to Pure Logic, had an influence not only in Poland but also in Russia and Bohemia, particularly amongst the members of the Moscow and Prague Linguistic Circles. 136 Thus the first ever translation of a work by Husserl was a translation of the Pro le-61 gomena into Russian which appeared in 1909.137 Here it is Husserl's in-fluence on Roman Jakobson which is of most importance, 138 particular-ly as manifested in Jakobson's work on phonology, which he esta-blished as a paradigm not only for other branches of linguistics but also for the human sciences in general.139 At the centre of Jakobson's many contributions to phonology is on the one hand the idea that phonological systems contain first of all pho-nemes such as / p / , / bl , l zl , and on the other hand the concept of dis-tinctivefeatures(Husserlian moments) such as compact/ diffuse, nasal/ non-nasal, etc. The phoneme is neither identical to the sound nor exterior to it, but is necessarily present in the sound, it remains as something which inheres in it and which is im-posed on it: it is the invariant in the variations.1• 0 We have already seen the notion of an invariant in variations at work in the writings of Husserl and Stumpf. It is employed by Jakobson in his definition of phonemes as that which distinguish words with different meanings in a language.1•1 If the replacement of one sound by another in a word or morpheme has no effect on the meaning involved, then the two sounds count only as phonetic variants of a single phoneme. Phonemes so defined are 'complex unities' of binary distinctive fea-tures.1•2 / p / , for example, in the English consonantal system, is +Lab-ial, - Voiced, - Nasal. A number of questions have been raised as to whether distinctive features must in every case be binaryoppositions.143 More important in the present context however are other claims about distinctive features made by Jakobson which are independent of this is-sue. The first is the claim that the existence of one distinctive feature ne-cessariiy implies the existence of the opposed feature.144 Jakobson 's re-peated emphasis on the inseparability, within a linguistic system, of the positive and negative poles of a distinctive feature, amounts to the view that this inseparability cannot be construed in terms of independent pro-perties (pieces) of independent phonemes : each of the terms uni vocally, reversibly and necessarily calls for its opposite. 145 His second claim takes the form of an ontological objection to the conception of phonemes as classes of sounds, one of the most influen-tial alternatives to the 'inner' approach to phonology in terms of systems of inseparable moments. Jakobson and Halle, 1956, argue against tak-ing the relation between a phoneme and particular sounds in terms of 62 class-membership. A phoneme cannot be a family or class of sounds re-lated, say, through an equivalence relation of phonetic resemblance, since this would fly in the face of the fact that when analysing phonetic data we deal directly with invariant properties: When operating with a phoneme or distinctive feature we are primarily con-cerned with a constant which is present in the various particulars. If we state that in English the phoneme / kl occurs before / n/ it is not at all the whole family of its various submembers, but only the bundle of distinctive features common to all of them that appears in this position. 146 ln the same spirit, we can recognise relations of partial coincidence be-tween all of the successive members of the foil owing series : distinctive features, phonemes, syllables, morphemes, words, phrases, clauses, sentences, utterances, discourse. Each of these wholes can be seen as a context for the parts that constitute it: the word is the context of the morphemes, just as the sentence is the verbal con-text of words ... while a morpheme in its tum is the context of phonemes.147 Philosophers of language have, by and large, not concerned themselves with structural and ontological connections of this sort.148 They have been tempted, rather, by the possibilities of set-theoretic model-build-ing, i.e. by the construction of analogues of these connections within a set-theoretical framework. Features are conceived as classes and bund-les of features are conceived as classes of classes. Once these assump-tions are made it is easy to interpret relations of foundation in terms of intersections and Cartesian products of appropriately chosen class-ana-logues.149 In one of his most philosophically interesting papers, "Zur Struktur des Phonems" (1939), Jakobson- in the context of a discussion of the importance of Husserl's work for linguistics - considers the controver-sial question of the reality of phonemes. He points out that phonology is not required to take up a position on the existence of phonemes but that proponents of, for example, the view that phonemes are fictitious con-structs should not overlook the fact that such a view commits them to the fictitious nature of a// linguistic entities. Similarly a view of phonemes as (abstract) classes, or as classes of classes, etc., commits its defenders to a view of all linguistic entities as abstracta. Between the elements of a phonological system there are relations of foundation of the types distinguished above. In his 1929 Jakobson 63 pointed out that laws of foundedness can be reformulated as laws of im-plication :150 if a exists then b exists too (necessitation), if a exists then bis absent (exclusion), and in principle we can distinguish also, following Holenstein, laws of compatibility: if a exists then b. c. dare possible. An example of necessitation would be: the acquisition of velar and pala-tal consonants presupposes acquisition of labials and dentals. Similarly the presence of velopalatals implies the simultaneous existence of lab-ials and dentals. The foundation is not, however, reversible : the pres-ence of labials and dentals does not imply the presence of velopala-tals.1 51 Further examples of foundation relations are discussed in Jakobson 's "Kindersprache, Aphasie und a1lgemeine Lautgesetze" ( 1940/ 42, §§ 14-17): the acquisition of fricatives presupposes the existence of stops, the existence of one is founded upon the existence of the other. The laws of one-sided foundation determine the inventory of phonetic systems but also the relative degree of utilisation of particular phonemes in language .. . When both phonemes, the founding as well as the founded, are introduced into child language, the former element generally appears in speech more frequently than the latter. Jakobson's demonstration that the foundation relations which are to be found in all phonological systems govern the temporal processes of ac-quisition of linguistic systems by communities of language-users as well as by the individual child, and that they govern the breakdown of such systems in linguistic change and aphasia, 152 provides the most important piece of evidence for the ontological autonomy of phonological sys-tems. Every phonological system is a stratified structure, that is, forms superposed strata. The hierarchy of these strata is very nearly universal and constant. It ap-pears both in the synchrony and in the diachrony of language; it is, therefore, a pan chronic order. If there is a relation of irreversible solidarity [i.e. of one-sided foundation) between two phonological values, the secondary value cannot ap-pear without the first value and the primary value cannot be eliminated without the secondary value. This order shows itself in the existing phonological system and it governs all its mutations ; the same order determines, as we have shown, 64 1 he learning of language, systems in process of development and- let us add - it pasists in language disturbances, systems in the process of breaking up.153 .lakobson's seminal analysis of phonemes, their distinctive features and 1 heir relations, has been extended by him to syntax, morphology and se-mantics, and this work has thrown much light on the status of semantic and syntactic features and on their relations of dependence.154 Holen-"'tein describes Jakobson's analysis of the Russian case-system, for ex-ample, as a contribution to eidetic phenomenology which 'shows how "' ingle domains of objects can be described by a ha rmonious system of relational properties' .155 The two cases of innuence of Husserl described brieny above' 50 sug-gest important substantive questions. To what extent has Husserl 's the-ory, in its application to categorial grammar and to phonology, been modified? Are there good grounds for the modifications and is the po-1cntial of Husserl ' theory for throwing light on grammar and linguistics vet exhausted? ~ 6 Further Developments: l\.()hlcr. Lewin, Rausc..·h 6.1 The most interesting example of applied whole-part theory outside the field of linguistics is provided by Wolfgang Kohler's Die physisd1en Gestalten in Ruhe und im .\·tationiiren Zustand (Physical Gestalten at Rest and in the Stationary State) of 1920. Kohler's principal thesis can he stated, somewhat crude I y, as follows: that even the most prototypical cases of summative or additive wholes-a heap of resistors, for example, or a line of motor-cycles, or a sprinkling of iron filings - can be convert-ed into wholes that are non-summative by immersion in an electromag-netic field , o r by the wiring up of their elements to an electric current. Kohler's work on physical Gestalten and his recognition of the scien-tific importance of non-summative wholes were initially sparked by ex-periments on the behaviour of apes in relation to their environment (op. cit., p . vi i). Such experiments had implied that there are states and processes whose characteristic properties and effects are not com-pounded out of properties and effects of their parts. 157 Such states and processes had, since Ehrenfels' classic paper "Uber Gesta ltqualitaten" of 1890, come to be called 'Ge~talten'. The two criteria for Gestalthood formulated by Ehrenfels were as follows: 65 A psychological whole (complex content) exhibits Gestalt structure only if I. the n constituent stimuli (e.g. the n notes of a melody) are such that when experienced in order by a single subject then the total stimulus is greater than the sum of the separate stimuli as these would be experi-enced by n separate subjects ; (the difference between the two is, in Eh-renfels · terms, the specific Gestalt-quality of the complex) ; and II. this specific property is such that it remains unchanged when the complex of stimuli on which it rests suffers certain determinate kinds of displacement (e.g. the transposition of the melody into a different key). ! SB Criterion I is satisfied, Kohler argues, only if the constituents of the complex satisfy the condition which he calls functional proximity (ab-sent when, for example, the notes of a melody are sounded at one month intervals ; cf. 1920, p. 35). 159 Further, both criteria apply just as well to continuous man if olds as to the finite wholes of discreta considered by Ehrenfels. Substituting the more general criterion of functional proxim-ity for Ehrenfels' criterion I . it can then be claimed that not only psy-chological complexes but also certain physical wholes exhibit Gestalt structure in the modified sense. The two resultant criteria are satisfied, for example, by electrostatic structures, invariant with respect to trans-positions of the material make-up of the conductor (which can be made of lead, of silver, etc.), of the spatial position and dimensions (though not the form) of the conductor, and with respect to variation in the total charge. Similarly, the electromotive force at the boundary between two electrolytes is invariant, given constant relative difference, with respect to changes in absolute concentration.160 Kohler put forward the hypothesis that, physics being a much further advanced discipline than psychology, it would be possible to clarify psy-chological Gestalten by investigating their physical analogues. The hy-pothesis gains additional strength from the fact that the central nervous system itself, and each specific stimulus field within the human organ-ism, can be conceived as a physical Gestalt-structure, nerve reactions as Kohler conceived them being in some respects analogous to electro-chemical reactions in weak, partially ionised solutions ( 1920, p. 5 f.).161 Kohler's own definition of 'summativity' was as follows: A collection (Zusammen) is a pure sum of parts or pieces [is a purely summative whole] if and only if it can be assembled from its parts one afterthe other without 66 any of the parts suffering any alteration as a consequence of the process of as-embly (op. cit., p. 42).162 He conceives this definition as equivalent to the following: A collection is a pure sum if and only if, through separation of parts or pieces, neither the residue partial collection ... nor the part that has been separated should suffer any alteration (Joe. cit.). These definitions are, as we shall see in 6.3 below, too crude to demar-cate a single homogeneous category of cases. Not only is their equiva-lence highly questionable, but they are too crude also in virtue of the fact that a given whole may exhibit summativity in respect to certain proper-ties, but Gestalt-structure163 in respect to others. Three electrostatically charged conductors in proximity to each other, for example, constitute a pure sum from the point of view of weight, but not from the point of view . of distribution of charge: differences in electrostatic potential across a system are not reducible to electrostatic properties of the parts of the sys-tem. Examples of absolutely summative wholes are difficult to come by. Even a heap of stones fails to satisfy the definition in an absolute sense, in virtue of the gravitational relations between the individual stones and the earth, as a result of which any relative motion of the stones will nor-mally cause (at least) changes in position of the residue of the heap. We can however agree that with certain exceptions those objects readily designated as 'things' 164 constitute purely summative wholes with one another so long as they do not come into con-tact .. . or, if they do come into contact, so long as the contact is weak and lies perpendicular to the direction of the earth's gravity (op. cit., p. 48). If, in contrast, we look at the charge-structure of a conductor: any change in the physical form, any partitioning of the conductor, any al-teration or removal of charge at any point, of necessity brings about a change in the charge-structure of the whole. It is as if the parts of the con-ductor interpenetrate reciprocally ; they do not exist merely side by side with each other, as is the case in a purely summative whole. In attempting to develop a logic of non-summative wholes Kohler in-troduces the concept of an Eigenstruktur (inherent or intrinsic struc-ture), i.e. of that kind of spontaneous order which affects given physical 67 materials in reflection of certain types of surrounding conditions. An Ei-genstrukturis not decomposable into pieces (it is not the sum of any con-stituent microstructures). It is however possible to distinguish abstractly within it moments of the structure: the charge at a given point in a com-plex conductor is a moment of the total charge structure. 165 This implies that it is impossible to create an Eigenstruktur by injecting an appropri-ate charge at every point: the moments of the structure verhalten sich ge-genseitig nicht wie 'Dinge' (cf. op. cit., p. 66). Gestalten as conceived by Ehrenf els are produced by mental activity on the basis of discrete, pre-existent contents, merely externally related to each other and in themselves undergoing no change as a result of be-coming combined into complexes. Physical Gestalten are not produced in this sense. And, Kohler argued, even with regard to mental forma-tions it is not the case that they are built up out of elementary sensations: we cannot explain perception as a summation of externally related mi-cro-stimuli. To account adequately for either physical or psychological phenomena a more general theory of part-whole relations is required. It has been argued above that such a theory was outlined by Husserl in the 3rd Logical Investigation~ hence it will be interesting to examine Kohler's reactions to Husserl 's views. We have already pointed out that Husserl borrowed from Meinong the terminology of foundation in ad-vancing his theory of part and whole. Meinong had merely substituted for Ehrenfels' 'Gestalt' the term 'founded content', accepting Ehren-fels' underlying theory with only minor hesitations (see Meinong, 1891 and 1899 and compare Ehrenfels, 1937). Unfortunately Kohler, in his discussion of Husserl's work, assumes that Husserlian foundation is to be understood exactly as in the Ehrenfels-Meinong theory. Consider, once again, a system 'I: of conductors, a, b. c, in an electro-static field . Kohler argues that a, band care not dependent parts of the system in Husserl's sense (see§ 3 above), since each might well occur in isolation from the others (p. 32 f.). This is to ignore Husserl's distinction between a qua constituent of L (or a qua bearer of tlie given charge) and a qua consignment of conductive material, the former a moment, the latter a mere piece of the system 'I:. That is, it is to ignore Husserl's thesis to the effect that foundation relations hold between individuals only in reflection of the essential structures of those individuals. Kohler also criticises Husserl for ignoring the question as to how and under what conditions entities come together to form a whole (p. 58). For Kohler, what is interesting is precisely the real, physical possibility 68 of an object's remaining in existence whilst at the same time suffering a determinate and spontaneous transformation of its intrinsic properties: "Husserl, as far as I can see, asks to what extent pieces somehow placed in relation to each other as if they were things can allow a whole to arise above them" (loc. cit.). Such remarks reveal that Kohler, again through confusion with Mei-nong's specifically psychological concept of foundation, misunder-stood the purely formal nature of Husserl's work. This was to a certain ex.tent encouraged by Husserl's continued use of the psychological ter-minology of' contents' and by his lack of consideration of non-psycho-logical examples of foundation relations. The deficit is made up, to some extent, by vol. III of lngarden' s Der Streit um die Existenz der Welt (1974).166 K<>hler contrasts his own ontological views with absolute ho/ism, on the one hand, and atomism, on the other (pp. 153 ff.). 167 According to the position of absolute holism, nature contains no independent parts; all states and processes are real only in the nexus of the world as a whole, all parts are products of abstraction. This view, which K<>hler castigates as a form of romanticism, implies the impossibility of natural science. The atomist position, in contrast, regards nature as built up out of Und-V erbindungen (mere sums) of independent parts. 168 K<>hler takes a posi-tion according to which holism is of only limited or local validity. It is, he claims, the fundamental experience of all experi.menters, that - in con-trast to the absolute holist view - leaving aside the interdependencies to be found within finite neighbourhoods of certain determinate types, the interconnections between physical processes in different regions of the world are relatively trivial (p. 156). Utif ortunately the unaccaptability of absolute holism, combined with the fact that the overwhelming bulk of the furniture of the world of ordinary everyday experience exhibits rela-tions of a merely additive character, has led to the acceptance of atomis-tic or micro-reductivist research programmes in all developed sciences169 at the expense of a lack of understanding of those types of structures crucial to the understanding of the phenomena of psycholo-gy. 6.2 The second development of the theory of part and whole consid-ered here was made by another student of Stumpf, the psychologist Kurt Lewin in his book Der Begriff der Genese in Physik, Biologie und Ent-wicklungsgeschichte. Eine Untersuchung zur verg/eichenden Wissen-69 schaftslehre (The Concept of Genesis in Physics, Biology and Evolu-tionary History. An Investigation in Comparative Theory of Science ).170 We tend to conceive a physical object such as a stone as the same object from moment to moment. Lewin however sees temporally extended ob-jects as multiplicities of successive entities. Consider, for example, a perfectly isolated bell-jar in which chemical reactions are taking place across a temporal interval {ti, 12). Define G,; as the totality of simple or complex chemical formations existing in the bell-jar at t;. Then G,2 stands to G,1 in the relation of existential being-such-as-to-have-come-f orth-from (existentiellen Auseinanderhervorgegangenseins)to G,1, a re-lation which is independent of the specific properties of the constituents of the G, r It is this same relation of existential antecedency that one has in mind when one considers e.g. the phenomenon of expansion of a me-tal in physics. It was Lewin who introduced the term 'genidentity' to de-signate the given relation. However, the concept of genidentity that is relevant to physical formations is, as we shall see, distinct from that which is relevant to biology: the transition from one discipline to an-other implies a corresponding change in the manner of dividing up reali-ty into units. Hence we shall find it necessary to distinguish a number of distinct (though interrelated) concepts of existential being-such-as-to-have-come-f orth-from. It is necessary, first of all, to distinguish simple from complete genid-entity. An amputated limb is simply genidentical with the whole body from which it had been amputated. The relation of complete genidenti-ty, in contrast, holds only between the whole body on the one hand, and the totality consisting of mutilated body, limb and residue, on the other. Complete genidentity is thus simply an expression of the physicist's at-tempt to isolate his experiments from extraneous disturbances. The concept of complete (physical) genidentity is required if we are to formulate, for example, the law of conservation of mass. This should properly read (cf. Lewin, op. cit., p. 12): if two or more physical formations are completely genidentical with each other, then they are of identical mass. This law expresses a relation among objects. The law of conservation of energy expresses a relation not among objects, but among events, which also exhibit relations of genidentity (for example between a dying and a death).171 70 Sim ple (physical) genidentity may be symbolised by means of ·p= ': complete (physical) genidentity by 'P = ·:absolute identity by·=·. Writ-ing '~ ' for ' is a proper or improper part of and ' / ' for ' is discrete from' 1H , ·p= ·can be defin ed in terms of 'P=' as foll ows: a P = b : = I 3 x (x/ a & _Xf' = b) & I 3 x (x/ b & ~· = a) (cf. Lewin, op. Clt. , p. 27). Then clearly: aP = b - V x (x/ b- a" =l= x) a"= b - V x(x/ a - bP=f=x) a" = b - 3a'3b'(d ~ a & Ii ~ h & d "= Ii ) Thus if a piece of metal fall s into an acid, then we know that this sub-..;ta nce must he present in some form in the liquid, even though it may have entered into chemical combination with it (op. cit. , p. 29). If we defin e t(x) as the temporal position of the object x, then we may f1.lrmulate the following principle of temporal density of genidentity: a"= h - 3x(t(a}< t(x)(11)' to designate the physical removal, by some specific process (e.g. pruning of a leaf, unscrewing of a bolt, etc.), of t1 from Z. will express the proposition that t1is invariant under removal from ZEby process . The first concept of summativity distinguished by Rausch is then defined as follows (Rausch, p. 216) : Clearly Kohler's collection of spatially disparate stones fulfils this de-finition under the natural partition, where '' signifies simple physical removal. 75 A second concept of summativity is obtained if we consider not the in-variance of an arbitrary part upon removal, but rather the invariance of the residue: ~~~( ZE): = Vi (( ZE - tJinvcI>( tJ ). 179 We can also impose the condition of invariance, under removal of an ar-bitrary part, not of the residue-manifold taken as a whole, but of any ar-bitrary part of the residue-manifold: or the weaker condition of invariance of at least one part of the residue-manif old: Vi 3j ( ~ ( ZE- tJinv( tJ ). A process Cl> of removal or separation may be associated with a converse operation ii> of additon of parts. An initial approximation to the first of Kohler's two definitions of summativity might then be: Sf ( ZE): = Vi ( t; ( ZE)invil>( tJ) where t; (ZE)invil>( tJ is to signify that t; remains invariant under addition to ZE- t,. We can define the following variant concepts : i.e. each sub-manifold ZE- t; remains invariant under augmentation by the corresponding t;; an n-f old whole is summative in this sense iff every (n-1)-fold sub-whole is invariant under augmentation; Sf" ( ZE): = Vi V j ( ~ ( ZE - t;)invil>( tJ); Sf"'(ZE): = Vi 3j(~ (ZE-t;)invi!>(tJ). A more adequate approximation to Kohler's two definitions is achieved however if we consider invariance not merely under separation or addi-tion of single members, but rather invariance under complete or total de-76 composition (or construction) of the whole Z. An n-manif old ZE exhi-bits n! ~ 1 ~in principle possible piece-wise decompositions (Rausch, i-1 1• pp. 233-30). Clearly there may be types of collectives in which the order of decomposition plays no role, others in which certain orders of de-composition have distinct effects, or are physically impossible. Sumrna-tivity will be associated with collectives belonging to the first of these groups. If we imagine the tree of possible decompositions of the n-manif old ZE, any given t; will be contained in 2"- 1 - 1 of the (proper and improp-er) sub-manifolds which form the nodes of the tree. Introducing the ex-pression 'Mi/JZE)' to designate the kth respective t1containing sub-man-ifold of ZE under some lexicographical ordering, k = 1,2,3, ... ,2n-i _ I, (Rausch, p. 230f), we can define the following strengthened form of Kohler-summativity: with the variants: ~( ZE) : = 'Vi 'V k ( (M;k - fJinv( t;) ), etc. (see Rausch, pp. 235-37). 181 Kohler's original definitions refer merely to 'assembly' and to 'separa-tion'. Thus they pay no regard to the possibility that variance and invar-iance properties may be dependent upon the manner in which parts are joined or removed (suddenly or gradually, violently or cautiously ; 'with a hammer, with a screwdriver', etc.). We can take into consideration the range of possible processes of addition/ subtraction by treating '' as a variable expression, thereby obtaining the following amended version ofS~v : and the much weaker condition : S~v(ZE) : = 3'V i (t; (ZE)inv(tJ ), and correlately for each of the definitions~~' etc. 77 Kohler's definitions refer further merely to 'invariance of parts'. It may however be f ruitf uJ to consider invariance not of parts, but of properties of parts: a banana is invariant under removal from a bunch in regard to its weight, not e.g. in regard to its spatial position. Introducing • e ( tJ' as a variable functional expression ranging over properties oft;, we may generate a further sequence of summativity concepts as follows : s~:( ZE) : = \f i \f e ( e ( tJinv( () ) and Stvl ZE) : = 3 e \f i ( e ( tJinv( tJ ), etc. In relation to st;: (and certain variants) it is possible to define a concept of summativity for properties: a property e is said to be st:-summative relative to Zand E iff it satisfies \f i ( e ( t; ( ZE) )inv( t;) ) (Rausch, p. 267). e is absolutely s~;:-summative iff it satisfies \f Z \f E \f i ( e (t,( ZE) )inv( tJ ). Similarly we can define concepts of summativity-with-regard-to-pro-perty-e (e.g. mass, colour, etc.) by, e.g. S~~( ZE): = \f i ( e ( t;( ZE) )inv( tJ ). The summativity concepts defined so far all relate to manifolds subject to arbitrarily determined partitions E, conceived as imposed by the ex-perimenter. If we wish to define a concept of ontological summativity, a concept which would involve no relativisation to any arbitrarily im-posed partition, i.e. which would relate directly to the underlying mani-fold itself, then this can be achieved by treating the hitherto constant term • E' as a variable, and quantifying over partitions of Z as follows: where X ranges over the various S-indices introduced above. 78 A further sequence of ontological summativity concepts is obtained by means of the schema: Besides subtraction , and addition, of parts, we can consider also other operations on a collective. In particular we can consider various types of variation 'V (of the parts of a physical whole or of a psychologi-cal content). 182 Thus for example &~~(ZE) : = 't/ 1( (ZE- t;)inV'Jl(t;)) ignifies that ZE is such that each ZE- 11 is invariant under the process of "1-variation (e.g. increase in size, or intensity of electric charge) of t1 •183 Rausch considers the following condition of non-summativity rela-tive to 'JI-variation : N"'(ZE) : = 3e 3e''V i (e (11 (ZE) )vaf'V(e'(t;))) i.e. that, for a given manifold and partition, there should. exist a pair of properties, e and e' which are such that, for each member t1 of Z 'JI-Va-riation of the first property brings about a consequent variation of the second property. It would be fruitful to investigate the relationship be-tween this condition and the condition of one-sided dependence of pro-perties considered by Stumpf and Husserl. e can be said to be dependent in Z upon e' if 'VE 'Vi ( e ( 11 ( ZE) )v~( e' ( 11) ) ) ; and e is absolutely dependent upon e' if 'V z 'VE 'Vi ( e (I; ( ZE)) Vaf'V( e' ( t;)) ). Thus consider a system L of n conductors L,, connected together by wire whose capacity is negligible in relation to that of the L, and placed so far apart that they do not influence each other through field effects. Writing' c(LJ' for 'the capacity of ~in L' and • q(LJ' for 'the quantity of charge in ~', then the state of equilibrium of the system is given by 79 c(LJ q(LJ = q(L) ,, L c(Lj). j - 1 The condition N"' given above is satisfied by the system L under the natural partition defined by t; = L;, where e = c, and e = q. That is: 'Vi (q (L; (L) )vanv(c (LJ) ), where ''V' signifies a specific variation of capacity (cf. Rausch, p. 275f). Similarly we have: 'Vi 'V j (q (Lj (L - LJ)vanv(c (L;))) i. e. a change in the capacity of an arbitrary conductor brings about an adjustment in the charge of all remaining conductors: the charge of a conductor depends not only on its own capacity (on the local condi-tions), but on the capacities of all the remaining conductors in the sys-tem. The above is a treatment of only a selection of the summativity and non-summativity concepts distinguished by Rausch. They are of rele-vancenot only in theareas of physics and perceptual psychology but also, in principle, to wholes of every kind. Thus we can make a distinction be-tween two kinds of summativity according to the order in which the ele-ments of a whole may be separated from it (see n. 180 above), and such a distinction between kinds of wholes can be seen at work in, for example linguistics, in the familiar distinction between restrictive or defining and non-restrictive or non-defining relative clauses. This distinction might be illustrated by respectively: the man in the comer who is looking at his hands is a philoso-pher and: the man in the comer, who is looking at his hands, is a philoso-pher. Or: knowledge which comes from books is power and: knowledge, which comes from books, is power. The non-italicised portion of the second example is in each case detach-able without loss of meaning. This is not the case in regard to the 80 corresponding portion of the first example: here the italicised portion must be separated from the sentence as a whole. 6.4 We should like, by way of an appendix, to consider briefly a num-ber of notational issues raised by the Stumpf-Husserl theory of wholes and parts. 184 The dependence diagram, a ... ... ·· a. .............. b ···· ········ ····· ~_ ....... <.......... ~ ·. c ··· ...... as already noted at n. 72 above, is ambiguous; it may signify either the obtaining of three distinct relations of pairwise mutual dependence, of a on b, b on c, and a or c, or the inherence in a, band c of a single relation of three-fold mutual dependence. That this distinction is not an empty one is seen by considering the ease of a polymorphously polygamous tribe which allows marriage both between pairs and between triples of individuals. If a single 3-marriage bond holds between a, b and c, then divorce between a and b can be effected only at some cost to c, which is not the case where a, band care respectively 2-married to each other. 185 Three-fold reciprocal dependence may be unambiguously represent-ed by means of a diagram such as the fallowing: 81 (and simila rly for 2-, 4- and n-fold reciprocal dependence). The com-plex of relations of pair-wise dependence may then be symbolised by: Mutual dependence relations (whether 2- or n-fold) are in each case represented by multiple lines. One-sided dependence may be represent-ed by means of single lines: ITJ I I b 1 where independence of an object or content is symbolised by solid walls. The above diagram may represent, say, the inherence of a specific moment of redness a in a beetroot, b. It is as if a and b lay behind the page, capable of being viewed as articulated in some specific way by the windows which make up the figure. This articulation may be more or less crude. for example, might symbolise ' the tomato bis red '; 82 'the individual redness-accident a inheres in a tomato' ; 'a tomato is red';, 'something inheres in the tomato b'; L}- 0 'something inheres in something' ; and finally perhaps also D 'something (some independent whole) exists'. Such devices, which go some way to rendering superfluous the quanti-fier machinery of modem predicate logic and at the same time to restor-83 ing the common noun to philosophical respectability, 186 have been thor-oughly explored by Wolfgang Degen in unpublished writings.187 might signify the dependence of two successive bouts of fever, a and b, on the disease c, inhering, along with the knighthood, d, in the individu-al e. a a d 0 b a .. might signify the dependence of the reconciliation r upon the disagree-ment d, which is in turn a two-place temporally extended moment inher-ing in the pair of individuals a, b. 188 The analogy of the window introduced above is not an arbitrary one. Dependence diagrams are pictures of states of affairs, and may be taken as propositional signs in the sense of the Tractatus.189 The directly de-picting language thereby determined reveals a hitherto unnoticed point of contact between Wittgenstein's early logical work and the primitive 84 experiments of Euler and Venn on a two-dimensional logical nota-tion.190 The parts of an existing state of affairs also exist.191 Hence a directly depicting language must satify the condition that every well-formed con-stituent of a propositional sign r admits of being infe"ed as a conse-quence of r. Degen has pointed out that a language which satisfies this requirement allows the perspicuous representation of certain forms of inference (which he calls grammatical as opposed to /ogica/inference) in a fashion which avoids the highJ.y unnatural detour through quantifi-cation theory imposed by predicate logic. Thus consider the sentences: (a) Hans kisses Erna three times. (b) Hans kisses someone three times. ( c) Hans kisses Erna. ( d) Someone kisses Erna. ( e) Hans kisses three times. (f) Erna is kissed. (g) There is kissing. Part of what is involved in the mastery of the grammar of a language such as English is the ability to recognise immediately the inferential re-lations between sentences ofthis kind, relations which may, in this case, be represented as follows: a I\ b c ! ! d e ! \ f I g We are criticising not only the artificiality of the quantification-theo-retical translations of such sentences 192, but also the inability of predicate logic to provide any direct representation of the grammatical inferences involved. Within our framework these inferences are simple and imme-diate applications of the sub-f onnula rule stated above : 85 (a) K I h e 193 ex -a K K (c) (b) h DJ --~ K ~· ---:__~____. 194 -Cl Cl K (d) ~ K ._ ---1L---~----' K ,.---(e) h (f) - K .__ a e K ' -K u -(g) K 86 The converse of the sub-formula rule= from r and A infer E, whose parts are precisely the parts ofr and A cannot, however, be accepted. For consider the two formulae I £ !- --. __ µ_.--- and e a µ i.e. 'Franz is married' and 'Ema is married'. The composite of the two states of affairs pictured by these formulae would be represented by: f a e a µ µ which presupposes (in a directly depicting language195) that two (dis-tinct) accidents of marriage are involved. This presupposition rules out the possibility that Franz and Ema are married to each other. From I £1 ...._ -~_:_:...___ and I m I '---µ I however, i.e. from the propositions which involve the presupposition that the same accident of marriage inheres in both Franz and Ema, we may infer: f a m KU. ~ µ I a I ---This suggests that we adopt the rule:from rand A, two propositional formulae having only properly (as opposed to generically) designating 87 sub-formulae in common, infer 3 , whose parts are precisely the parts of r and !l.. 196 The rule-schemata so far considered are purely formal in nature: they apply to all material contents (to all formulae, irrespective of the com-mon noun expressions they may contain). Grammatical deduction how-ever typically rests also upon certain material rules of inference, i.e. on rules of inference specific to the matters (or associated common noun expressions) involved. This is in virtue of the fact that such matters are not implicatively independent of each other. From 'Hans kisses Ema', for example, we may infer 'Hans does something (is physically active in relation) to Ema', and in general, wherever ' K' occurs in a valid proposi-tional context, the substitution of 'cp' (for •physical action in relation to') is validity-preserving: ---K .. . ---cp .. . Similarly from either 'Hans has pyopericarditis (n)' or 'Hans has parox-ysmal tachycardia ('t)' we may infer 'Hans has (a) cardiovascular dis-ease (y)', and from this we may infer 'Hans has a disease (o)' . I.e., in gen-eral: ---n .. . ---1: . . . ---y ... ---0 .. . A system of material substitution rules typically exhibits the structure of a tree, (isomorphic to the structure of the Porphyrian tree constituted by the material essences associated with the common noun expressions which are involved).197 There are not only vertical relationships amongst essences but also horizontal relationships, i.e. relationships of dependence between es-sences, for example between the hue (X), saturation (cr), and brightness (B) of a given colour-moment (y), and between the colour-moment and a moment of extension ( E ) . These give rise to further categories of mate-rial inference rules. Thus from 88 firrst of all infer we can . m infer•9s h. h we can m tu from w tc ~----and finally 89 It remains to consider briefly the relationship between the two-di-mensional system sketched above and the logic of Euler dia~rams . Clearly there is no problem in principle in incorporating overlapping fi-gures into the present framework, along with other elements of the Euler system which preserve the properties of a directly depicting language. A number off ormidable combinatorial problems are raised, however, as soon as we begin to investigate the inferential structure of the language which results. Thus whilst from, say, a b ' D we may unproblematically infer a D and from a ' DD infer 90 no similar unproblematic conclusion concerning the relation between a and ccan be drawn from b b ' D At best we can inf er something of the form: a ? ? ? c where'*' and'?' signify, respectively, 'is known to be occupied' and 'is not known to be occupied'. Not only does the introduction of'*' and'?' threaten to involve a radical departure from the principles of a directly 1 depicting language; it also places almost insuperable difficulties in the way of any statement of the inference rules of the resultant system.199 This completes our sketch of one possible symbolic framework for formal ontology. Issues not considered include the linearisation of sys-tems of this sort,200 and they include the relation of the formal ontology presupposed here to other formal ontological theories, for example the formal ontology of measurement (the theory of extensive and intensive magnitudes), the formal ontology of probability and possibility, of fu-sion or Verschmelzung, and of time and causality. We hope to take up these problems in future investigations. 91 Notes 1 In Wittgensteins 'swords ( Tractatus, 4.221) : "wie kommt der Satzverband zustande ?" 1 References given in this form are to works listed in the bibliography of writings on whole-part theory at the end of the volume. References to works not in this bibliogra-phy are given in full in the notes below. 3 A detailed analysis of the various form-matter concepts in the tradition is given by In-garden in ch. 7 of his 1964/ 65. 4 Compare LeSniewski, 1929, p. 14, and Gardies, 1975. s This classification of accidents, due to Wolfgang Degen, closely resembles the classifi-cation of Gestalt-qualities given by Ehrenf els in his 1890. Compare also the appendix to Smith, 1981. 6 Cf. I. Angelelli, "On Individual Relations", Studia Leibnitiana, forthcoming. Angel-elli contrasts what he calls the Siamese twin theory of relational accidents with the be-liefin the reality of (individual) relational states of affairs, propounded for example by Aquinas. Without such relational states of affairs "there is no real 'order' among the entia in the world" (§ 2). Cf. also Habbel, 1960, part 2. 7 Wrssenschaftslehre, § 127 : "Closer consideration shows that all propositions have three parts, a subject-idea, the concept of having, and a predicate idea, as indicated in the expression 'A. has b'. " • See also§ 58 on mediate and immediate parts, and compare §§ 18 ff of Husserl's 3rd Logical Investigation. 9 See especially§§ 9 f ofTwardowski, 1894. On the influence of Twardowsk.i, Marty and Husserl on LeSniewski and other Polish logicians see Dflllbska, 1978, Luschei, 1962, Surma, 1977 and§ 5.1 below. 10 On the influence of Balzano on Husserl see§ 9 of the latter's 1913. It is worth mention-ing that, along with Brentano and Twardowski, Husserl was principally responsible for the rediscovery of Bolzano's logic after his work had lain fallow for several de-cades. 11 See the introduction to the bibliography at the end of this volume, and especially the diagram on p. 87. 11 Compare Twardowsk.i, 1894, § 12 "Das Verhiltnis des Vorstellungsgegenstandes zum Vorstellungsinhalt". 13 Cf. also Fechner, Ober die physikalische und philosophische A.tomenlehre, 2nd ed., Leipzig: Mendelssohn, 1864, p . 260, and Husserl, LU V, § 18: "Not every unitary experience compounded out of acts is for that reason a compound act, just as every concatenation of machines is not a compound machine. . .. A com-pound machine is a machine compounded out of machines, but so compounded, that it has a total performance into which the performances of the partial machines flow, and the like is the case in regard to compounded acts." 14 Such complexes are illustrated by the kind of intermeshing depicted in, say, a model of a traffic accident or in a drawing of a pair of swordsmen en face : for a discussion of the place of these examples in Wittgenstein's philosophy see Smith, "Law and Eschatolo-gy in Wittgenstein's Early Thought'', Inquiry, 21 , 1979,425-41,esp. p. 428. On the in-fluence of legal science in the universities of Central Europe see Smith, "On the Pro-ductionofldeas. Notes on Austrian Intellectual Historyf rom Bolzanoto Wittgenstein", in Smith, ed., 1981 , 211-35; "Kafka and Brentano: A Study in Descriptive Psycho-logy", op. cit., 113-60; and also "Law and Eschatology", pp. 425 ff. is We shall return to this discussion of dependence relations amongst the elements ofle-gal and other complexes in the introduction to the essay by Reinach below. Beling, 92 1906 and Bierling, Juristis_che Prinzipienlehre, 5 vols., Freiburg and Leipzig: Mohr, 1894/ 1917, esp. vol. 1, provide a mass of examples of such a priori dependence rela-tions in the fields of criminal law and of civil and constitutional law respectively. The philosophical foundations of this conception of the objects of law are set forth by Rei-nach in his " Die apriorischen Grundlagen des biirgerlichen Rechts " , 1913, discussed in § 3 of the introduction to the essay "On the Theory of the Negative Judgment ... On a priori tendencies see Duncker, 1941. 16 A Rechtsverhiiltnis is simply that kind of gegenseitig sich zu einander Verhalten amongst individual subjects within the world which is, against the background of a giv-en legal system, a legally relevant whole. In the classical account, presented by Savigny in his System des heutigen romischen Rechts, 9 vols. (of which seven are devoted to the study of various types of Rechts-verhiiltnisse), Berlin: Veit, 1840/ 49, the matter or Stoff of a Rechtsverhiiltnis is distin-guished from its form, i. e. from the 'juridical determination of this stutr, through which 'underlying factual relations between individuals are elevated to the form of law'. Bierling, op. cit., distinguishes amongst the mutual relations of human beings in general Rechtsverhiiltnisse (obligations, claims, matrimonial and property relations, etc.) and spontaneous relations amongst individuals which admit of no juridical articu-lation; see esp. vol. 1, p. 194 et passim. His full classification of Rechtsverhiiltnisse is given on pp. 275-331 . Most important, for our purposes, is his distinction between one-sided and n-sided Rechtsverhiiltnisse, his account of Teilverhiiltnisse (p. 316) and of Rechtsverhiiltnisse hoherer Ordnung (pp. 327 fl). Compare also his analysis of cau-sality in the realm oftegally relevant states of affairs in vol. 3. This ontological classification of Rechtsverhiiltnisse by philosophers oflaw in the 19th century ran parallel with the classification by logicians of the Grundverhiiltni.Jse -above all the substance-accident relation and the relations of causality and of space and time - amongst objects in general. See above all Beneke's System der Logilc, part I, Berlin : Diimmler, 1842. On the relations between these two traditions, - which merged in the Sachverhalt-ontologies developed by Stumpf and by the early pheno-menologists, especially Husserl, Prander and Reinach - see the article "Sachverhalt. I" in K. Griinder, ed., Historisches Worterbuch der Philosophie, Basel: Schwabe, forthcoming. 17 2nd ed., Leipzig: Breitkopf and Hartel, 1869. 1• Op.cit., vol. 11.2, pp. 328 ff. Cf. also 4th ed., vol. Ill. 1, pp. 182 ff. The passage quoted is discussed at length in Engisch, 1953, ch. S, pp. 238 ff. 19 Cf. n . 13 to Smith, "Law and Eschatology" . 10 The influence of Boolean/ Schl'Merian ideas on mathematicians and philosophers, and particularly of SchrOder's Algebra der Logilc on Husserl (see his 1890, 1891a, 1908/ 09) and on Skolem and LOwenbeim, has perhaps been insufficiently empha-sised. One remnant of the Boolean algebra of classes appears in Bernays' and GOdel's theories of sets and classes (see P. Bernays, .. A system of axiomatic set theory. I " , Jour-nal of Symbolic Logic, 2, 1937, 65-77 and K.. GOdel, The Consistency of the Continu-um Hypothesis, Princeton: Princeton U.P., 1940). Where within (first order) Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory one has to adopt for each first order property a separate repla~ ment axiom, in the Bemays-GOdel theory one has a single replacement axiom for classes, from which individual replacement axioms for all first order properties of sets can then be derived. This is achieved by systematically replacing such properties by classes derived from other classes by means of operations which mirror the operations of the algebra of logic. 21 In modem properly mathematical work in set theory the distinction between E and ~ has, ironically enough, ceased to play any crucial role, since the levels of the cumula-tive hierarchy which form the objects of mathematical investigation are all of them 93 transitive sets, so that the systems of structural relations generated respectively by E and ~ prove to be mathematically interchangeable. 22 And cf. the third of Simons' three papers below. Cf. also Simons, 1980. 23 This pragmatic standpoint has come to imply that set theory is no longer conceived as a theory which describes its own appropriately structured world; it is conceived rather as an arsenal of mathematical tools with the help of which other, quite heterogeneous mathematical theories (arithmetic, analysis, topology, etc.) can be built up. But this im-plies that, with respect to any single mathematical theory, set theory is superfluously strong, its object-universe monstrously overgrown. 24 It may be helpful in what follows provisionally to identify 'moment' with 'abstract part', 'piece' with 'concrete part'. Compare § 17 of Husserl 's 3rd Logical Investigation where Husserl explains why this identification is of only limited validity. 25 See e.g. Drobisch, Neue Darsie/lung der Logik nach ihren einfachsten Verhiillnissen , 4th ed., Leipzig: Voss, 1875, part I, passim; Ueberweg, System der Logik und Ge-schichte der logischen Lehren. 4th ed., Bonn : Marcus, 187 4, § 4, "Das M erkmal und die Theilvorstellung". 26 In the light of the discussion of German legal ontology in § 1.3 it is interesting that Stumpf began his university career as a student of law (see Lewin, 1937). Stumprs pu-pils in psychology included Wertheimer, Kohler and Koffk.a, who went on to found the Berlin School of Gestalt psychology. As a philosopher however (cf. his I 906f and 1939/ 40, see also the work of E. Becher), he has had an almost negligible influence. This is to a large extent a result of the fact that his philosophical method - which in some ways resembles the piecemeal conceptual clarification of contemporary analytic philosophy - was alien to the German intellectual climate of the inter-war period. 27 "Were they merely members of a sum, then it would perhaps be conceivable, to put it simply, that when the extension disappears, so too does the quality (that they do not exist independently); but that the quality disappears gradually in this way, and disap-pears-without its changing as a quality-with the mere decrease and disappearance of the quantity, would be incomprehensible" (op. cit., p. 11 3). 28 Stumpf has 'Starke' instead of 'saturation' [Siittigung]. Cf. Stumpf, 1917. 29 Such that they " . .. merely keep each other company as a matter of habit ... " (Stumpf, 1939/40, vol. I, p. 183). 30 I. e. precisely the Wertheimer-Kohler-Koffka Gestalt psychology; see § 6 below. 11 This corresponds to an underlying Spinozist metaphysic: cf. Stumprs "Spinozastu-dien' ·, Abhandlungen der preussischen Akademie. Berlin, 19 19. Compare also the en-try for I. 8. 1916 in Wittgenstein's diary: "Gott ist, wie sich a lies verhalt" (Notebooks 1914-16, p. 79). On one-sided correlations see Stumpf, 1899, 1907, 1916. 32 For a full account of the evolution of Stumprs early thought it would be relevant to note that Lotze, who supervised Stumprs work on presentation of space, had antic-ipated the bare outlines of its general approach - albeit within a semi-idealistic frame-work- particularly in his work on local signs in spatial perception. 33 Brentano, Die Psychologie des Aristoteles. insbesondere seine Lehre vom Nous Poieli-kos, Mainz: K.irchheim, repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Eng. trans. by R. George, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977. 34 See also Smith, 198 I,§ 2 and G. Kung, 1978. JS Brentano, Wahrheit und Evidenz, ed. 0. Kraus, Leipzig: Meiner, 1930, Eng. trans., The True and the Evident, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966. 36 Psychologie, book 2, ch. 6. 37 The Brentanian treatment of complete and incomplete expressions (cf. Marty, 1908), can usefully be contrasted with Frege 's historically more influential treatment of sen-tential parts. 18 Brentano, Psychologie, chs. 5-7, Vom Ursprung sittlicher Erkenntnis, 3rd ed., with in-94 troduction and notes by 0. Kraus, Leipzig: Meiner, 1934, p . 57 ; and cf. Heinrich, 1910, p. lOf. for a discussion of the relation between Brentano's views and those of Husserl, especially as put forward in the 5th Logical Investigation. J9 hychologie, book 2, ch. 7. 40 Thus Brentano's philosophy influenced the development of Kotarbinslri's 'reism' or 'concretism • (see the latter's 1929). 41 It is striking how much recent philosophy has returned to ideas first spelled out by Brentano around the tum of the century. This is particularly true of his commitment to an ontology of material things and persons, of the great stress he laid on linguistic anal-ysis (see R. Haller, "Brentanos Sprachkritik", in Die Philosophie Franz Brentanos, R. M. Chisholm and R. Haller, eds., Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1978, 211-24), and also of his notion of the reflexivity of representation, which has surf aced in recent work on the pragmatic component in a theory of meaning (see F. Recanati, LA transparence et l'enonciation: pour introduire a la pragmatique, Paris : Seuil, 1979, e.g. H 1 and 9). For Brentano, when I hear a sound (the primary object of my act of hearing), I am also obli-quely aware of another object, namely this act itself (the secondary object in Brenta-no's terms). Similarly a linguistic act involves not only a content or reference but also an indication by the speaker of the sort of act involved. Kastil summarises Brentano's view as follows : " .. . when I say 'A exists' I want the person I address to judge that I believe in A ('s existence) ... the attempt to communicate is always double and what is communicated secondarily is a judgment concerning ourselves. Exclamations, re-quests and orders are also communications of judgments about what is going on in me. They are abbreviations of 'I am conscious of the wish that something should exist', etc.·· (Die Philo.rophie Franz Brentano.r, Bern: Francke, 1951 , p. 100). 41 See Brentano, 1978, and the introduction to this work by Chisholm and Komer. Cf. al-so Kastil, op.cit., ch. 5. It is in the contrast between their respective treatments of the continuum that the comparison between Brentano and Husserl on part-whole rela-tions is most fruitful. Briefly, where Brentano's treatment centres around the concept of a boundary, Husserl distinguishes what he calls moments of (spatial or.temporal) extension. A moment of extension has the following property, possessed by no other moments, that it, and moments founded on it, can be pieced (see§ 3 below). 43 This emphasis on structural relations signified a radical break with the subject-object centred tradition of German idealism. The neglect of Husserlian whole-part theory and of the work of e.g. Selz or Burkamp is almost certainly to be ascribed to the conti-nuing dominance of this tradition far into the 20th century. 44 Cf. E. Heinrich, 1910, H 13 f, and § 16 of Husserl's 3rd Logical Investigation. 45 Even here however Brentano did not conceive his work as contributing to a theory of wholes and parts as such. Following Aristotle, he regarded his work much more as a contribution to the theory of relations (or, better, of relama: cf. Kategorienlehre, pp. 166-99, Rawn, Zeit und Kontinuwn, part 2, essay 8, " Das Zeitliche als Relatives", and Kastil, op. cit., p. 132f). Examples of relatiwJ include a cause and its effect, the parts of a collective and the collective itself, a continuum and its boundary, a thinker and a thought, and all comparatives. The concept thus bas the same extension as ' foun-dation relation' in Husserl (see§ 3 below). Husserl however saw clearly that the con-cept of foundation relation is a formal concept (applying to all matters whatsoever), and he was explicit that his theory represented .. a segment of the a priori theory of wholes and parts, i.e. of forms of connection ( Verbindung) and unity in general" (Hus-serl, 1913, p. 131). 46 Accidents, that is to say, fall outside the universe of discourse of any scientific theory, (a view which echoes, of course, the opinion of Aristotle). Thus despite the subtlety of Brentano's concept of thing he suffers, in the end, from the same kind of naturalism criticised by Husserl in Part I of the Krisis. The analytic philosopher's emphasis on ma-95 terial things (or, more generally, on the bearers of proper names) is a related form of this naturalism. 47 See Marty, 1884/ 95 and 1908, and also Kraus, 1930, in which Brentano 'sand Marty's work on syncategorematica and on Sachverha/te is compared with Russell's early phi-losophy and with the Tractatus. 48 On the influence of Schroder on Husserl see the latter's 1890 and pp. 180-93 of his 1908/09. More general information on Husserl's mathematical background is provided in Scrimieri, 1965, Voltaggio, 1965, Husserl, 1907, pp. xxvff and Smith, 1976. 49 Compare Cantor's notion of a set as a 'collection into a whole (Zusammenfassung zu einem Ganzen) of definite and separate objects of our intuition or our thought' ("Beitrage zur Begriindung der transfiniten Mengenlehre ", Mathematische Annalen. 46, 1895/ 97, 481-512, 49, 207~, as repr. in Cantor's Gesammelte Abhandlungen mathematischen und philosophischen lnhalts, Hildesheim: Olms, 1966, p. 282). so Cf. PdA. p. 19. Here Brentano was drawing on a great deal of contemporary work on ontology in the Aristotelian tradition by, above all, his teacher Trendelenburg. 51 Cf. Stout, 1900 and Hicks, 1930/ 31. Contrast this approach with e.g. the following passage from Hume's Treatise, I, part IV, sect. Ill, "Of the Ancient Philosophy":• ... our ideas of bodies are nothing but collections formed by the mind of the ideas of the several distinct sensible qualities, of which objects are composed, and which we find to have a constant union with each other.' s2 Cf. Tractatus, 2.021 : "Objects make up the substance of the world. That is why they cannot be composite," and Trendelenburg, Logische Untersuchungen , 3rd ed., Leip- 1 zig: Hirzel, 1870, vol. 1, p. 185. H Cf.§ 1 of the first edition of LU I II (Passage deleted in second edition) and compare al-so ldeen, I, § 12 and the discussion of Morphenverschmelzung in Hering, 1921 , ch. 2. H Husserl told Kneale, on a visit to Freiburg in 1928, that the 3rd Logical Investigation was the best starting point for a study of his works. See Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology, 2, 1971, p. 78. In the forward to the second edition of the Logical Investigations Husserl wrote of the 3rd Investigation: "I have the impression that this Investigation is all too little read ... it is an essential presupposition of the full under-standing of the Investigations which follow". Cf. also Holenstein, 1973, passim. ss The Logical Investigations are dedicated to Stumpf, Husserl's teacher and colleague in Halle from 1886. During his time in Halle, Husserl was on friendly terms also with Hermann Grassmann, and with Cantor (see Schuhmann, Husser/-Chronik, p. 22 and A. Fraenkel, "Das Leben Georg Cantors", in Cantor, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, p. 477). Stumpfand Cantor were indeed, with the physicist Knoblauch, Husserl's Habili-tation examiners (Stumpf examining Husserl on topics which included Lotze's theory of spatial perception, the history of theories of space, and the relations between mathe-matics and logic - Schuhmann, op. cit., p. 19). Nothing is known of any contact be-tween Cantor and Stumpf. The mathematical works published by Stumpf in this period under the influence of Felix Klein(" Ober die Anwendung des mathematischen Wahrscheinlichkeitsbegriff es aufTeile eines Kontinuums" and "Ober den Begriff der mathematischen Wahrscheinlichkeit ",both published in the Sitzungsberichte der bay-rischen Akademie der Wissenschaften for 1892) had an incidental philosophical signi-ficance in that they influenced mathematicians such as Czuber to conceive probability statements as relating not to events but to statal entities (Tatbestiindeor, to use the term favoured by Stumpf, Sachverhalte). See e.g. pp. 5, 85 of Czuber's Wahrschein/ichkeits-rechnung und ihre Anwendung au/ Fehlerausgleichung, Statistik und Lebensversiche-rung, Leipzig: Teubner, 1903. s6 The concept of variation as a mode of gaining knowledge of essences played a crucial role in Husserl's later philosophy and in that of his students (see e.g. the account in E. 96 Swiderski, "Some Salient Features of lngarden's Ontology", Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology, 6, 1975, 8 1-90, esp. p. 87 f). It was anticipated by Bolzano ( Wissenschaftslehre, § 147) and appears already in Husserl's 1894, an important con-necting link between the Philosophy of Arithmetic and the Logical Investigations. n Cf. § 2 of LU III. In his translation of the Logical Investigations Findlay coined the term 'non-independent', as a translation of Husserl's unselbstiindigwhich would bring out the negativity of the latter (seep. 39 of his introduction). Our reasons for preferring the straightforward 'dependent' are given by Simons in his introductory note to the es-say by Ginsberg translated below. n These essences exist autonomously, i.e. independently of all cognitive acts (and thus, a fortiori, of the linguistic conventions or grammatical rules adopted by subjects who may gain access to them). See lngarden, 1925 and 1964/ 65, vol. II/ 1, and Swiderski, op. cit. 59 At least some of these truths are, we shall argue, not only a priori, but also synthetic. We do not however wish to rule out the possibility that others may belong to the realm oftheanalyticapriorias this is delineated by Husserl. See§ 4 below and Smith, 198 1. 60 Unpublished work by Wolfgang Degen on the formal ontology of quantum mechanics suggests that it may be fruitful to regard certain types of purported sub-atomic parti-cles as dependent moments of more familiar entities. 61 See Husserl, ldeen I , § 11. 62 Compare Ehrenf els, 1890, the paper which instigated Meinong's introduction of the terminology of foundation. 63 See the discussion of representation on pp. 782-800 in Reinach, 191 3, and § 4 of the in-troduction to the essay by Reinach below. ~ This aspect of part-whole theory is stressed by Burkamp in his 1929. 65 A preliminary classification of more than one thousand different types of whole is pre-sented by Rausch in his 1937. See§ 6 below. 66 This example is taken from lngarden, 1964/ 65, vol. I,§ 15. 67 See n. 72 below. 61 Findlay translates Husserl's 'Satz' (in 'I. Satz', '2. Satz', etc.) by 'Proposition' which draws attention away from the fact that Husserl provides a proof of all but Theorem I (which he finds axiomatically self-evident). This fact is further obscured in the English edition by the typographical running together of the proof of Theorem VI with the statement of the theorem. This edition also has 'subordinate' in place of 'superordi-nate' in Theorem II. 69 Compare § 84 of the Wissenschafislehre. '0 In his A History of Experimental Psychology, 2nd ed., New York: Appleton-Century-Croft, 1950, E. G . Boring speaks of a nativist tradition in psychology standing in oppo-sition to the empiricist tradition of, say, Hume, Lotze, Helmholtz, Wundt und Kiilpe. Nativism had its origins in Kant's theory of space and also in work on colour-theory by Goethe and Purkinje. Its principal representatives were Johannes Muller, E. Hering (successor of Purkinje in Prague), Mach and Stumpf (also both for a period holders of chairs in Prague), and the Gestalt-psychologists Wertheimer, Koffka and Kohler. " The following distinctive features of the English (stop) consonontal system : ± Labial, ± Dental, ± Velar, are mutually incompatible moments ; and they are genuine mo-ments : they never appear in isolation. See § 5 below. A relation of foundation is exhibited between the ingredients of sense, tone and force in a linguistic meaning as this is conceived by Frege. They correspond to three distinct dimensions in the geometry of meaning: "a difference between two expressions, or two sentences, in respect of any these three features . .. would ordinarily be accounted a difference in meaning ; a mistake about the sense, tone or force inten~ed to be understood as attached to a sentence or expres-97 sion would ordinarily be accounted a misunderstanding of its meaning" (Dummeu. Frege. Philosophy of Language, London: Duckworth, 1973, p. 84). Appeal is made to the concept of foundation also- we suggest - by Strawson, in his ac-count of the statement as an action or event standing (in effect) in internal relations to the circumstances in which it is made: see D. Willard " Husserl's C ritique of Extension-alist Logic:' A Logic that does not understand itselr " , Idealistic Studies. 9, 1979, 143-64, pp. 154 f, Tugendhat, 1976 and Mulligan, 1980. It is remarkable how seldom ana-lytic philosophers have paused to renect on the ontological presuppositions of their talk of ingredient, dependence, aspect, f ea tu re, etc. 72 Here, as elsewhere, lower case italic Roman letters are proper names of individual ex -istents. Lower case Greek letters are common nouns or common noun phrases, signify-ing species or types (middle C. prussian blue, etc.).~ may be read, according to con-a text: 'a which is (an) a ', 'a. qua or in its capacity as a '. (A similar notation is suggest-ed by Husserl in his 1908/ 09.) The broken lines signify mutual dependence relations amongst the contents designated. The form of representation given in the text is inade-quate in a number of ways. In any complete account it would be necessary, for exam-ple, to distinguish between n-sided mutual dependence amongst moments and an n-fold pairwise dependence amongst the moments taken separately. It would be neces-sary also to distinguish relations of dependence obtaining amongst species in abstracto (where part-whole imagery may be out of place) from the corresponding relations ob-taining amongst factual instantiations (a qua a , b qua 11, etc.). Two pictures would then be necessary: a picture of the relevant Wesensverhalt on the level of essence, and a correspondingly articulated picture of the underlying individual S achverhalron the le-vel of fact. A more detailed account of the directly depicting language which then re-sults-taking dependence-diagrams as propositional signs in the sense of the Tractatus - is given in § 6.4 below. 73 See expecially his Zur Lehre vom Lichtsinne: sechs Mittheilungen an die Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenscha.fien in Wien. Vienna: Gerold, 1878, and for further refer-ences pp. 11 5 and 379 of Boring, op. cit., and also Stumpf, 1918. 74 It was originally Herbart who recognised that expressions such as 'between ', 'among', 'high', ' low', 'side', etc., having their primary meaning in the geometrical sphere, can be used non-metaphorically for all quality continua. Cf. also the work on quality-spaces by Helmholtz, e.g. his" Kiirzeste Linien im Farbensystem ", Zeitschrift far Psy-chologie, 3, 1892, I 08-22. The idea of a Farbengeometrie was developed system-atically by Meinong in his" Bemerkungen uber den Farbenkorper und das Mischungs-gesetz '', Zeitschriftfar Psychologie, 33, 1903, 1-80, repr. in GA I. Cf. also Stumpfs Tonpsychologie. 1883/90, esp. vol. I, 189, his J 906a, p. 28 f, Gilman, 1892, Selz. 1930 ff, and Mulligan, 1980. Against this background the apparent gulf between Hus-serl's formal ontological work on the theory of manifolds and his more strk1ly pheno-menological writings on perception disappears completely. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the word 'Farbenraum ' employed by Meinong (Joe. cit.,§ 5, " Die Farbenraum und seine Dimensionen ") is used also by Wittgenstein, e.g. at 2.0 131 in the Tractatusand on p. 51 of the Philosophische Bemerkungen. 15 Stumpf employed the term 'phenomenology' to designate one such Vorwissenscha.ft -that which would explore the domain of possible contents of immediate sensory and memory experience. Given the considerable influence amongst experimental psycho-logists of the lecture "Zur Einteilung der Wissenschaften" in which this theory of de-scriptive a priori sciences is set out, it is interesting to note the similarities between Stumpfs use of'phenomenology' and the use made of it by Wittgenstein (cf. Spiegel-berg, "The Puzzle of Ludwig Wittgenstein's Phanomenologie ( 1929-?) ", American Philosphical Quarterly. 5, 1968, 244-56). "Physics", writes Wittgenstein, "differs from 98 phenomenology by its aim of establishing laws. Phenomenology establishes merely possibilities. Thus phenomenology would be the grammar for the description of those facts upon which physics erects its theories" (Philosophische Bemerkungen, p. 51). " Physics wants to establish regularities ; it does not look for what is possible. This is the reason why physics, even when it is completely developed, does not off er a description of the phenomenological state of affairs. Phenomenology always deals only with pos-sibility, i.e., with meaning, not with truth and falsehood. Physics focuses, as it were, on certain points in a continuum and uses these for constructing a lawlike series. It does not care about anything else" ( Wittgenstein und der Wiener Kreis, p. 63). "But what kind of a proposition is that, that blending in white removes the colouredness from the colour? As I mean it, it can't be a proposition of physics. Here the temptation to believe in a phenomenology, something midway between science and logic, is very great" (On Colour, p. 15, written ca. 1950-51 ). The possibility of an influence of Stumpf on Witt-genstein has been raised in another context by Smith in his 1978 and arso in "Wittgen-stein and the Background of Austrian Philosophy", Wittgenstein and his Impact on Contemporary Thought, Vienna: H()lder-Pichler-Tempsky and Dordrecht : Reidel, 1978, 31-35. 76 See e. g. Husserl, 191 3, § 6. 77 The term 'material a priori' is used instead of the more usual 'synthetic a priori' in or-der to avoid unnecessary confusion with Kantian uses of this term. An excellent ac-count of the confusion, in Kant's critical philosophy, between logical and material ne-cessity is provided by Reinach in his 1911 (see also the introduction to the essay by Rei-nach translated below, and also G. Davie, "Edmund Husserl and ' the as yet, in its most important respect, unrecognised greatness of Hume"', in G. Morice, ed., David Hume Bicentenary Papers, Edinburgh University Press, 1977, 69-76). Analytic a priori truths in Husserl's sense (see LU III,§ 1 Ofl), are either purely formal laws or the results of specification (substitution) in these. Synthetic a priori truths de-rive their truth from necessary connections not amongst forms, but amongst matters; they reflect necessary connections amongst the things ref erred to, characteristic of some material domain or region. In the terminology of the present essay such connec--tions are ref erred to as material a priori connections. This line of demarcation may be less than sharp if under 'the results of specification' we allow ourselves to understand not merely those sentences obtained by uniform syn-tactic substitution (taking 'an a which is a Pis a W to: 'an aardwolf which is a predator is a predator'), but also sentences obtained by substitutions resting on problematic se-mantic equivalences. Consider, for example, the following specification of 'an a which is a P is a W: 'a declaration which occasions a tendency to bring about occa-sions a tendency to bring about '. If we can endorse some semantic equivalence along the lines of: act of promising to do = dedaration which occasions a tendency to bring about then this would seem to yield as an ultimate result of specification the apparently syn-thetic 'an act of promising to do occasions a tendency to bring about ' . What had appeared synthetic would then have to be counted as implicitly analytic. Compare Wissenschaftslehre, § 148, Note 1, where Bolzano grapples with a similar problem. 11 Cf. e.g. Ideen / , § 49: "Consciousness ... must be reckoned as a self-contained system of being, a system of absolute being. into which nothing can penetrate, and from which nothing can escape; which has no spatio-temporal exterior, and can be inside no spatio-temporal system; which cannot experience causality from anything nor ex-ert causality upon anything ... ". Investigation of the range of possible combinations of dependence and independence between consciousness and world forms the basis of lngarden's ontology as set forth in his Der Streit um die Existenz der Welt. As will have been clear from the passage quoted from Berkeley's Treatise at the head of § 2 99 above, it is not only the metaphysics of phenomenologists which admits of expression in whole-part terms. The absolute idealism of Bradley, to take just one example, is founded upon a theory of internal relations which has many points of contact with the theory of foundation relations here developed, though marred by the lack of any re-spect for the distinction of matter and form. Bradley held, simply put, that there is only one independent whole (the world), that all other entities are moments (in his eyes in-admissibly abstracted moments) of this whole. At the opposite end of a spectrum of metaphysical positions we would find some form of absolutist atomism, a view ac-cording to which the furniture of the universe is constituted exclusively by mutually in-dependent simples (apparent ontological commitment to higher order objects founded on these simples being treated as a dispensable/afon de par/er). The truth, which is to be found in lngarden, 1964/65, falls between these two extremes. See also § 6.1 below. 79 See ldeen l/(Hua IV), pp. 133f, 253ff; Erste Philosophie 1923/24 l(Hua VII), 403; Kem, Husserl and Kant, Haag: Nijhoff, 1964, § 9. 80 A third early criticism is to be found in the Philosophie der Arithmetik (Hua XII), p. 42: "Kant overlooked the fact that many contentual connections (inhaltliche Verbindung-en) are given to us which do not involve any noticeable trace of synthetic activity bring-ing them about". 81 Cf. Ch. 1 of /deen III (Hua V), "Die verschiedenen Regionen der Realitat". 82 In the double sense indicated in the second half of note 72 above. 83 Cf. the accounts in ch. I of Habbel, 1960 and in ch. 7 of Gardies, 197 5. 84 Cf. Reinach, 1921 a, p. 53 of reprint: Eng. trans., p. 211. Consider also the laws holding in the region of musical tones (as discussed by Stumpf, e.g. in§§ 8 and 10 of vol. l of the Tonpsychologie): for example the laws relating to the one-dimensionality of the tone-sequence, that given three tones of different pitch, one is always in between the others, etc. 85 This view is of course already present in Aristotle. Reinach 's 1909 Habilitationsschrift on Wesen und Systematik des Urteils, the manuscript of which has unfortunately been lost, can be presumed to have contained further steps towards the realisation of this project. The idea of an ontological foundation for logic, which Reinach shared with Prander, can be diseemed also as underlying Meinong's work on logic and Gegen-standstheorie. The project formed the subject-matter of Martin Honecker's Gegen-standslogik und Denklogik. Versuch einer Neugestaltung der Logik. Berlin und Bonn: Diimmlers, 192 I. For an account of the opposition between the (Reinachian) ontolog-ical approach to the a priori and the logico-grammatical approach of modem analytic philosophy see Delius, 1963. The audacity of Reinach 's theory is made manifest- at a time when so much ink is spilt on the synthetic a priori by philosophers prepared to ac-knowledge at most a small fraction of Kant's original range of examples, -in its impli-cation that there are vastly more cases of synthetic a priori truths than Kant had recog-nised. 16 It is clear that in the classification of a priori dependence relations sketched briefly in § 1.3 above (text to n.15) the dimension of temporality has to be incorporated: rela-tions of necessitation, exclusion, etc., may hold between moments standing in determi-nate relations of succession. A complete classification would thereby exhibit at least three dimensions: according to the type of relation involved (necessitation, exclusion, etc.): according to the temporal structure of the relevant moment-whole: and accord-ing to the formal structure of this whole (which may be one-sided, two-sided, n-sided, etc., or a combination of these). The first dimension has been discussed in detail al-ready by linguists, especially Jakobson and his associates; see Holenstein, 1974, ch. 2, and§ 5 below. The second dimension, considered by Husserl in LU Ill,§§ 13 and 25, is discussed briefly in the introduction to the essay by Reinach translated below; the third dimension in § 6.4 of the present essay. 100 •1 Where, in regard to the jigsaw puzzle which is a language, analytic philosophers have been ready to accept that there are complicated restrictions of fit between the constitu-ent elements, they have been less willing to accept the existence of such restrictions in regard to the constituent elements of human life. They have dismissed as accidents of convention such material a priori truths as : it is impossible to flick one's wrist with jeal-ousy or all human languages contain words f or black and white or even all human so-cieties are patriarchal. This is because what is materially excluded in a given region is often perfectly well imaginable. by those who have taken no steps to familiarise them-selves with the laws holding in that region. 88 Cf. e.g. Strawson, Individuals, London: Methuen, 1959, ch. I and Tugendhat, Vorle-sungen zur Einfiihrung in die sprachanalytischen Philosophie, Frankfurt : Suhrkamp, 1976, esp. chs. 23ff. 89 This notion of an object's being embedded in a system or net of Sachverhalte is dis-cussed, from different formal-ontologicaJ points of view, by lngarden (1931, e.g. § 24 and 1964/ 65, vol. I Ill, ch. XI), Burkamp, 1927, and Hazay, 1915. ~ See e.g. Pariente, 1973, Burkamp, 1933, § 188 and B. Erdmann, Logik, 3rd ed., Berlin : de Oruyter, 1923, § 169. 91 LU III, § 12, Note 1. 92 On regional ontologies see Husserl's ldeen 111 (Hua V), ch. I , and also L . Landgrebe, "Seinsregione und regionale Ontologien in Husserls Phanomenologie'', Studium Generate. 9, 1956, 313-24. Around 191 8 Husserl seems to have worked on a never completed 'philosophicaJ book for mathematicans' and 'mathematical book for phi-losophers' dealing with the problems of a formal theory of science in relation to the theory of individuation. C f. Hua, Ill, 1: "Einleitungdes Herausgebers " , p. XLVf, and also Beilagen 27 and 30-32 to Hua III, 2. 93 See Ingarden, 1935 and 1964/ 65, III/ I . 94 See vol. III of lngarden's Der Streit um die Existenz der Welt: Ober die kausale S truk-turder realen Welt, 1974; compare also § 25 of LU 111 ( 1st ed.). 95 LU III,§ 22. This sentence is used by Jakobson as the motto to his 1940/ 42. 96 See, in particular, Stout's two papers, " Bradley's Theory of Relations" ( 1900), " Rus-sell's Theory of Judgment" ( Proceedings of the Aristotelian S ociety, 15, 1915, 332-52, repr. in Stout, 1930, 239-57) and also Moore's 1919. 97 See e.g. his 1960 and 1967. 98 See LU III, § 22. 99 See Husserl's Zur Phiinomenologie des inneren Zeitbe~tseins (1893-1917), Haag: Nijhoff, 1966 (Hua X), e.g. p. 24 f. Cf. also Seebohm, 1972 and 1973, and Sokolowski, 197 4, ch. 6 . Every experienced now. Husserl argues, contains as dependent moments a backward-looking retention and a forward-looking protention. 10° Cf. ldeen J/(Hua IV), summarised in part by Claesges, 1964, §§7 f. On Husserl 's work on the theory of colours see Piana, 1966. Detailed unpublished material by Husserl on secondary qualities drawing on the whole-part framework is discussed by G . Witschel in his 1964. Husserl distinguishes, for example, between those sense-qualities which, though localisable, do not have an extension which admits of immediate piecing (Zen tiickung), warmth, for example; and those which do, e.g. colour. 101 See part II of Husserl's Krisis (Hua VI). 102 Cf. also ldeen I , §§ 95, 116. 1 oJ For an account of the relation between this theory and the formal ontology of part and whole see Smith, l 980a. 104 In both LU Ill and V Husserl carefully distinguished between whole-part relations amongst acts and sensory contents on the one hand, and phenomena of fusion (of qualitative continuity or Verschmelzung) on the other. Cf. Stumpf, Tonpsychologie, passim, and also e.g. Hicks, 1930/ 31 , and Mulligan, 1980. 101 105 Principles of an ontology of fitting are employed also by Ingarden in his theory of 'pure epistemology' which considers the question : "what conditions must be met by an object and by an act of knowing, if this cognition of the object which is carried out in the given act is to have this or that epistemic value" ( Ober die Ste/lung der Erkennt-nistheorie im System der Philosophie, Habilitationsvortrag, HaUe: Karras, Krober and Nitschmann, 1925, p. 30f. Cf. also his "Uber die Gefahr einer Petitio Principii in der Erkenntnistheorie ", in Jahrbuch for Philosophie und phiinomenologische Forschung. 4, 1921 , 545-68, and G. Kung, "Zurn Lebenswerk von Roman lngarden. Ontologie,' Erkenntnistheorie und Metaphysik ",in H. Kuhn, et al., eds., Die Munchener Phiino-menologie, Haag: Nijhoff, 1975, 158-73.) 106 Cf. the passages from§ 18 of LU V quoted above, and lngarden's "The Hypothetical Judgment", Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 18, 1958, 435-50. 107 The formal ontology of fitting is related, in particular, to topology. This is seen by the fact that an extensional fragment of this logic is simply the geometry of solid sheets. As primitive terms of this fragment we might select: fits partially but not peifectly (fits with free play) into, fits peifectly into, is incapable of being fitted into (is skew to). Symbo· lising these relations by, respectively, c, c and I we can assert, for example, that a c b- 3 x. a U xcb; acb- 'ff x. a U x.f b; aib- 'ff x. a U xib. Here 'U' sym-bolises geometrical colligation. These implications hold, like all truths of geometry, as a matter of a priori necessity. The topological analogy was exploited - somewhat overenthusiastically - by Kurt Lewin in his Principles of Topological Psychology, l 936, which presents a metricised whole-part-theoretical framework within which the relations of fit obtaining amongst psychological formations, particularly those associated with goal-seeking, can be for-mally expressed. 108 The analyses presented in E & U, unlike those in the Ideen, represent a true continua-tion of and advance over those of the 3rd Logical Investigation. 109 Cf. E&U §§ 28-32. On the relation between Husserl;s concept of absolute sub-strate and the concept of an absolutely simple object see especially §§ 28 f and Piana, 1977. lngarden, 1925, contains an early, complementary discussion of expli-cation. 110 Pfander's Logik, 1921, 182-206, contains a detailed account of the different ontologi-cal relations expressed by the copula. Cf. also Husserl, 1952, BeiJage 30. Husserl's ar-gument for the introduction of species is presented in LU 11. 111 Cf. n. 105. It is lngarden, more than any other philosopher, who has developed Hus-serl's insight into the possibility of a descriptive epistemology. 112 Such material connections will of course be obscured if the object-domains with which one deals consist not of objects (or meanings) themselves, but of set-theoretical models of such objects or meanings. Examples of material connections among meanings are provided e.g. by J. Trier, " Das sprachliche Feld. Eine Auseinandersetzung", Neue Jahrbucher for Wissenschaft und Jugendbildung, 10, 1934, 428-49. 113 We are grateful to Peter Simons and to Professor Czeslaw Lejewski for their help in the composition of this section. 114 See Lesniewski, 1929; Ajdukiewicz, 1935, Rickey, l972ff. Fora more general account of Lesniewski's work see Luschei, 1962, which also provides ample bibliographical material. For a more historical perspective see Surma, 1977. 115 It was LeSniewski who produced the first ever formalisation of the relation of part to whole in the strict sense of 'formalisation' as understood within post-Fregean philoso-phy. Fonnal laws of this relation had however been expressed by many authors before Lesniewski: the law of transitivity of parts, for example, was formulated by Bol.zano, Twardowski and Husserl, and was of course recognised within the Boole-Peirce-Schroder tradition . 102 110 lt is only in connection with his ontology(see below), that Lesniewski, in his published writings, mentions Schroder. : 1' 0 Zasadzie Sprzecznosci u Aristolelesa: Srudiwn kryryczna . Krakow, 1910. 118 This terminology first appears in Kotarbinski, 1929: it appears in Lesniewski's own published works only later. 110 He was quite si mpl y unable to make any sense of the axiomatic set theory of Zermelo: see C. Lejewski's article o n Lesniewski in P. Edwards, ed., The Encyclopedia of Philos-ophy. 4, 441-43, p. 442. 11fj A single axiom for mereology on the basis of the primitive 'discrete' was formulated by Lejewski already in 1977 ; see (c) on p. 62 f and§ 7 of the Appendix to B. Sobocinski, ··on Well Constructed Axiom Systems", Polskie Towarzysto Naukowe na Obczyinie. Rocznik, 6, 1855/ 56, 54-70. Welsh , 1978, offers a variety off urther possible starting places for the same theory of whole and pan. 121 Note that Lesniewski was not concerned with the explication of the term 'is ' as this ap-pears in any actually existing natural language; his aim, rather, was to produce a logi-cally perfected copula, defined exclusively by its behaviour within the system. 1 ~2 Husserl's reciprocal dependence is thus effectively absent fro m Le5niewskian gram-mar. Indeed, a categorial grammar taking 2- o r n-s ided foundation as basic remains a desideratum even today. i? .i This development may have received its initial impetus from purely terminological considerations. When the new, strictly formal-logical meaning of the term 'sema ntics· that had been propounded by Tarski came to be accepted by logicians in the 30's and 40's, the characterisation of Husserlian meaning-categories as ·semantic categories' became no lo nger viable. Certain elements of the theories inspired by Husserl , Les-niewski and Ajdukiewicz could however properly be designated as 'syntax ' under the new dispensati on. and it has been these elements, at the expense of investigations of purely fo rmal relations amongst meanings. that have continued to be developed by workers in the field. 124 See Lejewski, 1973. 1 ~ 5 Lesniewski himself conceived prototheti c and ontology as properly logical theories, mereology as belonging to mathematics. Nowhere in his published works, however, does he provide a criterion for this distinction . iJ~ To characterise mereology as a true theory implies, of course, that one understands the theory under its intended interpretation. The Lesniewskian approach to logic was, like that of Frege, exd usively a first order approach : the statements of formal logic are con-ceived as immediately and unproblematically true of the world itself, which is the only model held wo rthy of consideration. Contemporary logicians, in contrast, ignore the world, directing their attention instead to families of set-theoreti c models of logical systems. 1 ~- On the and-functor see§ 15 of Reinach 's .. On the Theory o f the Negative Judgment" below, Hus!:.erl, PdA, p. 75 f, Bolzano, Paradoxien des Unendlichen. § 3, and§§ 70-74 of Russell. 1903 ( ~f. the discussion in§ 1.2 of Essay I I by Simons, below). On the struc-ture of the hypothetical judgment see Ingarden, "The Hypothetical Judgment'', Phi-losophy and Phenomenological Research. 18, 1957 / 58, 435-50. 1 ~ g This would in many respects parallel the formal taxonomy of all possible relations be-t ween chemical elements as determined by atomic theory: for further discussion of this parallel see§ 6.4 below. 11" See C. Serrus, le Parallelisme logico-grammarical. Paris: Akan, 1934. part 2, ch. 5, 3 17-81, and perhaps also Bar-Hillel, 1956. 1111 Now collected in Husserl. 1979. 11 1 .. Synta ktische Formen und syntaktische Stoffe. Kemformen und Kernstoffe '', Hua, XV II , 299-313. 103 131 s ff ee Hua, XII, pp. 475, 485 , "Das Gebiet eines Axiomensystems/ Axiomensystem. Operationsystem ",and Mulligan, l 980. 133 See LU IV,§§ 12, 14, and the work referred to inn. 131 above. 134 lne term 'modification' signifies an a priori possible meaning transformation (e.g. the nominalisation of a sentential expression such as 'this book is red' to form the nominal 'this red book'). See LU IV,§§ 11 , 13, V, §§ 39-40, E&U, § 55. m Thus Jakobson, for example, distinguishes between phonetics as a Stofjlehre and phonology as a Form/ehre: cf. Jakobson, 1939, and compare the remarks on Savigny on p. 93 above. The form/ core distinction emerges in the syntax of natural languages as a distinction between syntactic categories and syntactic f ea tu res. 136 See Holenstein, " Prague Structuralism - A Branch of the Phenomenological Move-ment'', in J. Odmark, ed., Language, Literature and Meaning/: Problems of Literary Theory, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1979, 71-98. m Logitscheskija lzsledowanija. Tschastj perwaja. Prolegomeny k tschishoi Logike. trans. E. A. Berstein and S. L. Frank, St. Petersburg: Obrazovanije. 138 See Holenstein, 1975, which contains a full account of Husserl's influence and a dis-cussion of the associated substantive issues. Jakobson also draws on Stumprs work on the psychology of sound, arguing, for example, that not only colours but also sounds exhibit dimensions of brightness and saturation. u 9 See e.g. ch. 3 of Holenstein, 1974, and the papers referred to inn. 150 below 140 Jakobson, "Un manuel de phonologie generale", 1939, SW I, 311-16, p . 315. 141 Jakobson, " Phoneme and Phonology", 1932, SW 1, 231-33, p. 231. 142 "Un manuel de phonologie generale ",Joe. cit. Jakobson was able to show that natural languages make use of an inventory of not more than a dozen such distinctive features (Jakobson and Halle, 1956, p. 471 f) . These ' inherent features' are distinguished from prosodic features which 'bind the phoneme as such to the time axis', i.e. in the termi-nology of the 3rd Investigation, necessarily involve a moment of temporal extension. '"3 On gradual (non-binary) phonological f ea tu res see T. Vennemann, "On the theory of syllabic phonology", Linguistische Berichte. 18, 1972, 1-1 8. 144 Cf. Jakobson, "Retrospect (1961)", SW l, 629-58, p. 645. 14s See Jakobson, "The identification of phonemic entities", 1949, SW l, 41 8-25, p. 421. This point is made also by the phenomenologist and linguist H . Pos in his 1938. 146 Jakobson and Halle, 1956, p. 471 f. 147 Jakobson, "Aphasia as a Linguistic Topic", 1955, SW II, 229-38, p . 233. 148 In his 1974 Holenstein discusses a type of opposition studied by Jakobson of extreme importance in natural languages and other sign-systems: the opposition between marked and unmarked terms. Husserl and Stumpf had isolated the phenomenon of Verschmelzung (blending or fusion) as this pertains to the phenomenal continuity of perceptual or act moments. It seems that unmarkedness is a linguistic correlate of con-tinuity for objects and acts. Cf. n. I 04 above. 149 See especially G . Ungeheuer, 1959, but also A. Juilland and H .-H. Lieb, Klasse und Klassifikation in der Sprachwissenschaft, Haag: Mouton, 1968, p. 58f, and J. W. F. Mulder, Sets and Relations in Phonology. An Axiomatic Approach to the Description of Speech, Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1968. 150 On implicational laws see also Jakobson, "Results of a Joint Conference of Anthro-pologists and Linguists '', 1953, SW 11, 554-67, p . 563 and also his 1963. Compare Ho-lenstein 1974, p. 36 of Eng. trans., and § 4 of "Zur Begrifflichkeit der Universalienfors-chung in Linguistik und Anthropologie", Arbeiten des Koiner Universalien-Projekts, 35, 1979. On linguistic universals in general ·see J. H. Greenberg, ed., Universals of Language, Cambridge, Mass.: M .l.T. Press, 1963. See also text to nn. 15 and 86 above. isi SW I, p. 320. Further examples are provided throughout Jakobson's works. See also Holenstein, 1976a and l 976b. 104 1 j l m Jakobson's work o n aphasia is complemented by the investigations of the conse-quences of brain damage by Gelb and Goldstein listed in the bibliography at the end of this volume. I H SW I,p.321. •s4 See also the work of Hjelmslev on dependence, as presented e.g. in B. Siertsma, A S111dv ofG/ossematics. Haag: Nijhoff, 1955 (here 'interdependence' = our 'recipro-cal dependence', 'determination'= ·one-sided dependence· , ·constellation' = 'mutu-al compatibility'). Literature on semantic features tends to be more recent, but see, on word-fields, J. Trier." Das sprachliche Feld ... " (n. 112 above). iss See Holenstein, 1974. 156 In a more complete account it would be necessary to discuss also the work of R. A. Hudson, particularly his recent Arguments for a Non- Transformational Grammer, 1976. Whilst by no means falling under the influence of Husserl, Hudson has neverthe-less contributed substantially to our understanding of the project of a Husserlian grammar. The work in question sets out a typology of the dependence relations to which different grammatical theories are committed. He points out that whereas Euro-pean dependency grammars such as those of L. Tesniere, Elements de Syntaxe Struc-turale, Paris: Klincksteck, 1959 and H.-J. Heringer, Theorie der deutschen Syntax, Munich: Huber, 1970, have made use of bi- and multilateral dependence (horizontal or 'sisterhood') relations between parts, not only did the 'immediate constituent' ana-lysis of American structuralism concentrate exclusively on whole-part (vertical or ·mother-daughter') relations in which larger syntactic units a re seen as being quite li-terally composed of smaller ones, this one-sided emphasis on vertical relations was taken over by transformational grammar. Hudson 's grammar, like the pure grammar outlined by Husserl , makes use of both sorts of relations and shows the importance of dependency relations both between parts i.e. categories (such as noun-phrase and verb) and between features (such as [ + transitive] and [+nominal)). •S 7 The given properties and effects are, in the terminology of the philosophy of science, emergent:" A property Pof a whole w is an emergent wholistic property (relative to the theory T. a decomposition D of winto parts, and a set G of properties) if· P{w)' cannot be deduced from the body of knowledge consisting of ( 1) the theory T. and (2) a char-acterization with regard to all the properties of G of the parts of w which are members of the decomposition D". This definition, given by Rescher in his reply to Madden, 1952 (Philosophy of Science. 20, 1953, p. 327) a nd adapted from the definition given by C. G. Hempel and P. Oppenheim in "Studi es in the Logic of Explanation ", Philoso-phy o.fScience. 15, 1948, 135-75, provides only an approximation to the concept of ab-solute emergence (as contrasted with emergence relative to a theory T ) defended by Koh ler (see e.g., o p. cit.. pp. 34, 169). isg The fi rst criterion, of ·Obersummativitiit', is fo rmulated by Ehrenfels on pp. 13-16 of his 1890 ; the second criterion of 'Transponierbarkeit' o n pp. 18-21. For literature on Ehrenfels' criteria see Gelb, 191 1. 1 ~0 The notion offunctional proximity o r functional interdependence is very close to Hus-serl's notion of mutual foundation discussed above. 1•0 Other examples considered by Kohler include magnetic fields, membranes, osmotic systems, energy fields (e.g. high temperature systems giving rise to work, in the physi-cal sense, and kinetic energy structures in hydrodynamics), and electric circuits. Kohler notes that the non-additive character of all of these examples had been recog-nised long before 'Gestalten' were discovered by Ehrenfels in 1890 (op. cit., p. 92, 124, er passim). The concept of relative difference has played an important role in more re-cent work in structuralist linguistics and elsewhere. 161 The idea that physical structures could throw light on psychological structures was re-jected by the Ganzheits-psychologists (Krueger, Yolkelt, Sander, et al.), a parall el 105 movement to the Gestalt school, taking as their starting point the absolute heterogenei· ty of the two types of holistic fonnations, (Cf. Kohler, p.x.) Whilst many of Kohler's, and the other GestaJt-psychologists', specific claims concerning the physical proper· ties of sti mu I us fields were later refuted by independent physiological evidence-a fact which led to an almost total abandonment of the Gestaltist research-programme in mainstream psychology- Kohler's arguments for the importance of non-summativity, in both physics and psychology, retain their validity. Maddens's argument in his 1952 to the effect that all that is of scientific importance which can be expressed in Gestaltist language can be re-expressed in (atomistic) analytic terms, an argument which echoes Gustav Bergmann 's early work on Gestalt theory, misses the point. It could equally be argued that all that is mathematically valuable in contemporary mathematics can be re-expressed in the language of Principia Mathematica. There is however no one who would def end the view that this re-expression would succeed in making more perspi-cuous the (referential) content of mathematicaJ propositions. 162 These definitions apply equally to continuous as to discrete sums. 163 We use the term 'Gestalt structure•, with Kohler, as synonymous with · Obersummativ-itiit', i.e. as implying merely the satisfaction of Ehrenf els' first criterion. On the various possible definitions of '0bersummativitat' see§ 6.3 below. 164 By 'thing' we are to understand 'non-living bodies in a stable state . . . i.e. the greater part of the inorganic world insofar as this normally faJls under our attention' (loc. cit.). 165 The moments of an Eigenstruktur are, further, non-extensive moments: they cannot be subjected to piecing in the way in which e.g. the colour-distribution across a surf ace can be pieced. Kohler was aware of Husserl's 3rd Logical Investigation and frequently employs the piece/ moment opposition in his work, without however accepting Hus-serl's theory of foundation (see below). The non-extensive character of Eigenstrukturmomente is illustrated by the example of current flowing through a liquid or through a non-homogeneous conductor (p. 137 f) : "There are no partial currents to be encountered in particular regions of the conductor and which might therefore also be encountered in the absence of the remainder of the current; in our theoretical conceptions of the current in specific regions we have much rather to deal, as in the electrostatic case, with moments which canythe remaining cur-rent as well as being themselves supported by it; for as independent formations they are, in relation to the given physical form, not capable of existence." KOhJer discusses not onJy the concept of an Eigenstrukturbut also the complementary concept of a Feldstruktur(field structure). The former is illustrated by the magnetic properties intrinsic to a magnetised body, the latter by the magnetic properties of the environment of the body. The field is, for Kohler, not a mathematical fiction (as in Far-aday's electrostatic theory) but a realer Zustand des Mediums (p. 70). The properties of the field are univocally detennined by the Eigenstrukturand thus a lso by the physi-cal form of the underlying material The two structures cannot however exist in isola-tion from each other: they are inseparable, equally real sides of a single fonnation (p. 7 t ). 166 The works acknowledged by Kohler himself as having contributed to the logic of non-summative wholes are Wertheimer, 1912 (particularly the remarks on the theory of categories) ; Stumpf, 1906a; and Krueger, Ober Entwicklungspsychologie, ihre sach-liche und geschichtliche Notwendigkeit, Leipzig: Engelmann, 1915, (see op. cit., p. 58n). 167 See the second half of n. 78 above. 168 The classic statement of the atomist position in 20th century philosophy is Wittgen-stein's Tractatus. The concept of independence can be applied not merely to objects but also to states of affairs and to events. Again, Wittgenstein's TractatusotTers an ex-treme view as to the lack of interdependence of states of a ff airs, implying a position ac-106 cording to which "There is no special object peculiar to probability propositions .. (5.151 1 ). This position was criticised, along lines very similar to those defended by Kohler, in J. v. Kries. Die Pnncipien der Wahrscheinlichkeirsrechnung. Eine logische Vmersuchung, Freiburg: Mohr (Siebeck), 1886 and in Meinong's, 1915. ••q Similarly the fact that ordinary everyday experience exhibits mainly additive wholes has led many philosophers to overestimate the power of set theory as a basis fo r philo~ophical ontology. 170 See also Lewin, 1923. 'Wissenschaftslehre' in Lewin's work 1s to be understood in the sense of Stumpf. l 906a. 11 1 It b clear that no thing can be genidentical with an event (see vol. I of lngarden, I 964/ 65). For the distinction between genidemity sequences of things and of events Lewin refers to Lotze. Mernphysik, Leipzig : Hine!, 1880, p. 8. n ·;· may be

Pieces of a Theory

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

PhilPapers