Evoking a new way of thinking.
Key Vocabulary: Fundierung
Fundierung is the ultimate expression of context
dependence. As Rota put it: “All whats "are" by the
grace of some Fundierung relation whose context-dependence
cannot be shoved under the rug. Viewing, in manifold modes, is
a function; seeing is the facticity that founds viewing …
Western philosophy since the Greeks has been haunted by a
reductionist anxiety, steadfastly refusing to draw the
consequences of taking Fundierung seriously. The history of
Western philosophy is riddled with attempts, some of them
extremely clever, to reduce Fundierung relations to "something
else" that will satisfy our cravings for certification of
existence. We find it inadmissible that "unreal" functions
should turn out to matter, rather than "real" objects or
neurons in people's brains.”
Fundierung
is the invisibility we afford the pen as the instrument when
we are focused on accomplishing the writing. We look
past the "foundation" (fundierung) which affords the very
activity we seek to accomplish. The danger lies in
our reaction at those times when we are forced to overcome the
fundierung relation and look explicitly at the medium of which
we are making use (as when the pen runs out of ink). The
success of the IPhone is due to fundierung (we can ignore the
phone while making use of the apps) and the opposite (the very
need to be aware of our interactions
with the phone) describes much
of Microsoft's problems in the
marketplace. (Blackberries by this analysis found
themselves in the middle - often with apps that afforded
fundierung and yet demanding enough of attention to be
recognized as "using a blackberry.")
“Tools are further striking examples of
Fundierung relations. Pencil, paper, and ink are tools I use
in writing. They are normally taken as material objects. But
this is a mistake, one of many we are forced to make in our
everyday dealings. Pen, paper, and ink are functions in
Fundierung relations. The pen with which I write I ordinarily
take to be a material object. Strictly speaking, the pen is
neither material nor object: it is a function that lets me
write. I recognize this object as a pen only by virtue of my
familiarity with its writing functions. The facticities "ink,"
"plastic," "small metal ball," etc., of which the pen is
"made" (as we ordinarily but imprecisely say) let this
odd-shaped object function as a pen. Like all facticities,
they are indispensable in a pen's function; this
indispensability of facticities leads to the mistaken
"identification" of facticities with the function of pens. The
absurdity of this reduction can be realized by eidetic
variations: no amount of staring at this object as an
assemblage of plastic, metal, and ink will reveal that the
object we are staring at "is" a pen, unless my previous
familiarity lets me view the pen through the facticities upon
which it is founded.” (Rota)
For our purposes, the fundierung relationship which is often denied is that of synecdoche. If one is making use of label or category, it can be helpful to ask if the fundierung of that relation matters. Often the mere raising the fundierung question is sufficient to shift the focus from the Science I world of facticities to the Science II world of functions.
See: Gian-Carlo Rota, Fundierung
as a Logical Concept