Until now, in the drawing of the Structural Differential, only one label: the word: designation, elementary step of description.

We can add other ones :

From each level of observation (label), one can formulate a higher level of abstraction, by retaining some of the characteristics of the preceding level.

The choice can depend on:

When one passes from a level of abstraction given to a higher order of abstraction, the elements given up on the first level can be so because at the higher level one or more new elements are introduced.

The choice of the elements thus treated being often a question of preferences, it always invites to criticism.

Since each level of abstraction is reached only by leaving aside a part of the characteristics of the previous level, our judgements, inferences, evaluations, theories, etc..., can never give an account of all that occurs. A new scientific theory often aims at taking account of characteristics which the previous ones had left aside and the importance of which appeared afterwards.

Our observations and the judgements that they lead us to carry, the deductions that we draw from them, etc..., never give an account of all the indefinite number of elements which constitute a situation.

* awareness, perceptive recognition of an object, a fact or a phenomenon, themselves abstractions of events,

* verbal designation of this object or fact,

* its description,

* its classification if necessary,

* inferences or deductions,

* judgements,

* theories, assumptions, etc...

The last label related to the diagram is only the last label that, by convenience, one chooses to put. In reality, there never is a last label, one can always pass to a higher level of abstraction.

The number of levels actually used depends on the cases: what imports is to know how to use this kind of scale correctly, up or down.

We often act on the basis of a theory, of a pre-established judgement, which we stick to the experiment without describing this experiment before.

* when we react to the word as to a signal - and not as to a symbol - we dodge the level of description to jump from the start to that of the inference.

* we evaluate abstractions of a higher order as if they were abstractions of a lower order, e.g.: words, memories, etc..., are treated as if they were objects, experiments, feelings...

* we confuse inferences and the terms related to inferences with descriptions and descriptive terms, etc...

* we create semantic blockings thus  loss of contact with what we live :

- what occurs here and now,

- what we test here and now:

instead of reacting to the current situation, we react partially to what evokes in us a past situation or to the way we imagine a future situation.

Then it frequently happens to reverse or distort the natural order of evaluation: instead of checking our abstractions of a higher level by confronting them to the lower levels, we handle the latter to make them correspond to the first:

We judge the facts according to our theories and we forget to reconsider the theories in the light of facts  illegitimate extrapolations, over-generalizations: e.g.: " You do such things as... "

One can legitimately use the terms " truth " or " forgery " only at the level of the observation - level on which the statements are verifiable -.

At all higher levels, we only deal with probabilities and our statements on these levels are always subject to criticism, to a later revision in the light of new data.

Second empirical premice:

Example of image of " Laughing Cow " (a French cheese on the box of which is a laughing cow wearing ear-rings made of boxes of a "Laughing Cow" you can see to the infinite) : image of the image:

To be complete, a map should represent a " map of the map " as well as the cartographer, the map and the cartographer being part of the ground at the time when the card is drawn up.

The language:

 It is impossible to conceive that we can decide in an absolutely complete way, to have the last word.

The structure of our language.

The structure of the world. appear as such

The structure of our nervous system.

that any symbolization, at least at the human levels : the word, the writing, the map, drawings, numbers, etc..., reveals itself to be potentially self-reflexive in an indefinite way.

Bertrand Russel (theory of the mathematical types):

- we can speak about a proposal concerning all the proposals,

CONCEPT OF MULTIORDINALITE OF THE TERMS OF THE VOCABULARY:

Many terms which we employ are multi-ordinal : they do not have a general meaning uniformly valid.

The meaning of a multiordinal term is determined by the level of abstraction to which one employs it: this meaning is determined by the context. Example 1: yes, not, truth, forgery, made, reality, cause, effect, to love, to hate, etc...

Example 2 : in the army, the term " unit " refers to formations of different importances: a unit is part of a larger unit which, in its turn, is part of a even larger unit.

To precise terms to indicate each unit: group, company, battalion, brigade, etc... The smallest unit is contained in the average and the average, at the same time contains smallest and is part of the largest one.

This feature is common to all multiordinal terms: they refer at the same time to the containers and the contents. The problem is to know which ones are which ones.

Concept of multiordinality  problem of questions which cannot be solved or which do not make sense: general significance of the " good ", " truth ", " beautiful ", etc...: such terms make sense only one once the level of abstraction (context, conditions to fill, etc...) has been specified.

The problem of the questions which do not make sense or to which one cannot give answers, declarations which do not make sense or cannot be checked depends on :

- self-reflexivity of the terms wich are involved.

- multiordinality

If we give up any futile effort to give a term a general meaning, we will endeavour to make adequate the context the term of which receives such a particular significance which can become his.

Stating that the meaning of a word changes leads to a freedom of expression and a flexibility of interpretation.

To be fully conscious of self-reflexivity and of multiordinality helps to acquire a clear thinking, an exactitude in one's remarks, a direction of all the process of evaluation, which helps to avoid considerably the confusions implied in the concern and the fear, the resentment, the anxiety and other handicapping semantic reactions.

The negligence with regard to the multiordinality is observed in the majority of the cases of badly adapted personalities.

The majority of the terms which we use are at the same time:

While defining the words which are used to formulate a definition, one comes, at the end of a certain time, to a residue: words which cannot be fully defined, because they cover certain basic postulates, metaphysics or others.

The question of the semantician: " What do you mean ? " involves a thorough investigation which touches finally the residue of the nondefinite terms revealing our structural " credos " we are not aware of at the beginning.

These credos, often " silent postulates ", must be changed to get to better evaluations.

To chapter XIII