I think it would be wise to first define how you are using the word function.
stellamonika wrote:The study function which generates knowledge is common to all knowledge.
A partial truth in that there is intuitively something common to people in gaining knowledge. Also there is ambiguity in the use of the word generates. Are you sure that knowledge is generated or gained(acquired)?
Personally I would reconsider the use of the word function and subfunctions - I think that maybe it would go something like the following:
Study is a procedure which can be performed on many objects. The study procedure has seven functions.
1. function of seeing the parts. -- returns what has been seen.
2. function of seeing the uniqueness. -- returns what the uniqueness is.
3. function of seeing the connections. -- returns what the connections are.
4. function of seeing the influences. -- returns a list of influences.
5. function of seeing the instability. -- returns what the instabilities are.
6. function of seeing the uses. -- returns a list of the uses.
7. function of seeing the substitutes. -- returns what the substitutes are. Are the substitutes analogies?
I am not saying that you should do it this way - I am merely trying to offer some constructive criticism. Procedures and functions are similar except that procedures do not typically have what can be construed as output - they are more like function drivers and it is the functions that have the output - hence the detection of ambiguity given that a function can also be defined as: practical use or purpose in design; here indicating no output.
I am basing my response on the linguistic context I am detecting based on your terminology - it is more like you are trying to write a program yet there is more than one "context stream". By "context stream" I am detecting more than set of "literary devices" in use. In one "stream" it is like a program is being written or mathematics is being performed and in the other stream it is more like a book is being written which tells me that the idea here is neither.
The usage of the word vital is in a different conceptual domain - think lexical semantics.
So what does that leave us with? Honestly I am not sure because the original post is interesting to me but worded in a rather peculiar fashion with no definitions supplied of keywords being used. So in effect it is wide open to interpretation. Is interpretation what you are going for here? I am wondering whether English is the native language of the author.
As for the image in the second post:
surreptitious57 wrote:Number 2 is wrong because not every object can be studied and specifically those not known to exist or ones
that no longer exist or ones that will only come in to existence once the human species itself no longer exists
I would have to agree.
I like the underlying idea in the original post but I think it needs to be cleaned up so as to be better understood.
