---
title: "<PERSPECTIVITY ANALYSIS />"
language: en
date: 2026-09-12
canonical: "https://andreasvieth.de/en/ppi/perspectivity-analysis/"
format: markdown
generator: "TYPO3 LLMs.txt Extension"
---

# <PERSPECTIVITY ANALYSIS />

Export the page as structured markup – optimised for machine processing and re-use. (Use the browser's back button to return to the website view.)

 [ Read markup ](https://andreasvieth.de/en/ppi/perspectivity-analysis/.md.md)

## <PERSPECTIVITY ANALYSIS />

The <PerspektivitätsAnalyse> is a PTL instrument designed to detach the discourse of "subjective" and "objective" from the crude everyday polarity and to render it precise as a *multidimensional question of perspectivity*. Its starting point is the insight that "subjective" does not simply mean "mere opinion" and "objective" does not simply mean "universally valid." What is decisive, rather, is **which type of access**, **which ontological bearer**, **which claim to validity**, and **which degree of abstraction/concretisation** is in each case at play. In this way it becomes visible *why* apparent disputes about subjectivity/objectivity are often in truth disputes about *models of access*, the *status of entities*, or *forms of validity*.

Methodologically, the page draws on Broad's analytical refinements: it compels one to distinguish **the act of cognition from the object of cognition** (e.g., "experiencing" a state versus "contemplating" a state of affairs) and to grasp "direct accessibility" not psychologically but logically: **Enjoyment** (the participant perspective, necessarily private) as opposed to **Contemplation** (the observer perspective, contemplative cognition); **Prehension** (the immediate acquaintance with a sensum or introspective datum) as opposed to **discursive/inferential knowledge** (publicly mediated attribution via behaviour/indications). The central question is then no longer simply "subjective or objective?" but rather: **Is perspectivity being modelled as the privacy of immediate acquaintance, or as the corrigibility of discursive inference?**

Ontologically, <PerspektivitätsAnalyse> takes as its point of departure the difference between **Continuants** and **Occurrents**. An "inflamed nerve" is a continuant (an enduring physical entity), whereas a "toothache" is an occurrent (a time-bound mental event/state). The analysis holds that the transition from the physical process to the conscious episode is not merely an "ignorance of mechanisms" but a structural question: what kind of causality is being presupposed (transeunt physical causation versus a psychophysical bridge), and is the mental treated as an irreducible occurrent, or is it reductively reinterpreted in terms of continuants?

With regard to the theory of validity, the page introduces a firm dividing line: the **objectivity of validity** is *not* identical with **universality**. Particularly in the moral domain, the standard error is to admit objective validity only where a proposition holds "for all." Following Broad, this can be rendered precise by means of **determinables versus determinates**: a judgement can be objectively valid even though it is extremely specific at the determinate level (e.g., *this* particular tax system in *this* constellation). The guiding idea here is **Resultant Fittingness**, or an objective **wrong-making tendency**: validity is bound to a concrete structure of circumstances, not to nomological generality. <PerspektivitätsAnalyse> thereby renders "topologies of validity" visible: *objective-specific* versus *universal-determinable*.

Semantically, finally, the page addresses the ambiguity of "abstract." It distinguishes **abstraction as selection** (the highlighting of one aspect) from **abstraction as construction** (the building up of a logical schema/space of rules). At the same time, "concretisation" is understood not only epistemically (proximity to examples) but also motivationally: when is a rule conducted merely as a "bloodless relation," and when as a *disposition* (empathy/impetus) that becomes efficacious within the subject?

**The four checkpoints (matrix) of <PerspektivitätsAnalyse>:**

1. **Epistemic accessibility:** prehension (private/direct) versus discursive inference (public/indirect).
2. **Ontological grounding:** consciousness-dependent occurrents versus existence-independent continuants.
3. **Topology of validity:** objective fittingness in the specific (determinate) versus nomological universality (determinable).
4. **Degree of concretisation:** logically detached structure (abstract) versus phenomenological enactment/motivational acquaintance (concrete).

## <PERSPEKTIVITÄTSANALYSE> ... </PERSPEKTIVITÄTSANALYSE>

```markup
<PTL>

  <ZIELE>
    <ZIEL>Precise disentanglement of the equivocations of "subjective/objective" and "abstract/concrete" in philosophical texts and positions</ZIEL>
    <ZIEL>Five-dimensional analysis of every concept of perspectivity: epistemic accessibility, ontological grounding, validity-theoretical topology, degree of generality, logic of abstraction</ZIEL>
    <ZIEL>Reconstruction of the causal interface between physical processes (continuants) and conscious states (occurrents) in the text</ZIEL>
    <ZIEL>Diagnostics of the validity topology: distinguishing between determinate-specific objectivity and nomological universality (determinable)</ZIEL>
    <ZIEL>Critical counter-examination through alternative models of perspectivity (FINDEPERSPEKTIVMODELLATERNATIVE)</ZIEL>
  </ZIELE>

  <THEMA>Philosophical Perspectivity: Subjectivity, Objectivity, Abstraction and Concreteness</THEMA>

  <PERSPEKTIVEN>
    <PERSPEKTIVE>Epistemic (accessibility and mode of cognition: Enjoyment vs. Contemplation)</PERSPEKTIVE>
    <PERSPEKTIVE>Ontological (dependence and reduction: Occurrents vs. Continuants)</PERSPEKTIVE>
    <PERSPEKTIVE>Causal-analytical (transeunt vs. immanent type of causality)</PERSPEKTIVE>
    <PERSPEKTIVE>Validity-theoretical (validity topology: Determinate vs. Determinable)</PERSPEKTIVE>
    <PERSPEKTIVE>Abstraction-logical (selection, construction, motivational appropriation)</PERSPEKTIVE>
  </PERSPEKTIVEN>

  <METHODEN>
    <METHODE>Five-dimensional analysis: reconstruction along epistemic accessibility, ontological grounding, validity topology, degree of generality, and logic of abstraction</METHODE>
    <METHODE>Equivocation filtering: systematic scan for concealed shifts of meaning in "subjective," "objective," "abstract," "concrete"</METHODE>
    <METHODE>Enjoyment/Contemplation diagnostics: separating the act of cognition from the object of cognition, checking for illegitimate transfers of properties</METHODE>
    <METHODE>Ontological dependence and reduction test: categorial assignment of phenomena to continuants or occurrents; uncovering naturalistic attempts at reduction</METHODE>
    <METHODE>Validity-topological specification (Determinable/Determinate): demonstrating that objective appropriateness (Resultant Fittingness) can be located at the determinate level, even without nomological universality</METHODE>
    <METHODE>Vicious-Abstraction diagnostics: uncovering the error of falsely treating what is conceptually separable as ontologically independent</METHODE>
    <METHODE>Epistemic abstraction test (Acquaintance vs. Description): examining whether abstract knowledge lacks direct experiential acquaintance</METHODE>
    <METHODE>Motivational abstraction test: distinguishing between a cognitive rule-schema and an empathically internalised driver of action (Conatus)</METHODE>
  </METHODEN>

  <KERNFRAGEN>
    <KERNFRAGE dim="Epistemik">How is epistemic access structured: as an incorrigible participant perspective (Enjoyment/Prehension) or as an inferential observer perspective (Contemplation/Discursive Inference)?</KERNFRAGE>
    <KERNFRAGE dim="Ontologie">Are the entities under discussion ontologically consciousness-dependent occurrents or consciousness-independent continuants?</KERNFRAGE>
    <KERNFRAGE dim="Kausalität">Is a clean distinction made between transeunt causality (physical processes) and immanent causality (emergence of subjective experience)?</KERNFRAGE>
    <KERNFRAGE dim="Geltung">Is the validity claim of a norm falsely conflated with its degree of universality, or is determinate-specific objectivity (Resultant Fittingness) admitted?</KERNFRAGE>
    <KERNFRAGE dim="Abstraktion">In which categorial sense is something called "abstract": epistemically (lack of acquaintance), ontologically (Vicious Abstraction vs. emergence), or motivationally (lack of conatus)?</KERNFRAGE>
    <KERNFRAGE dim="Äquivokation">Does the text contain concealed shifts of meaning between the five dimensions of "subjective/objective"?</KERNFRAGE>
    <KERNFRAGE dim="Emergenz">Are higher ontological levels (e.g., mental qualities) recognised as legitimate emergent strata, or treated as logical errors (Vicious Abstraction)?</KERNFRAGE>
    <KERNFRAGE dim="Motivation">Does the text exhibit a motivational abstraction gap between theoretical rule-knowledge (schema) and action-effective execution (conatus)?</KERNFRAGE>
    <KERNFRAGE dim="Konsistenz">Are the five dimensions of perspectivity handled in a manner that is internally consistent and free of contradiction among one another?</KERNFRAGE>
    <KERNFRAGE dim="Begriffsökologie">Which competing concepts appear – privacy, intersubjectivity, universality, immediacy, phenomenality?</KERNFRAGE>
  </KERNFRAGEN>

  <KATEGORIEN>
    <KATEGORIE>Enjoyment vs. Contemplation</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Prehension vs. Discursive Inference</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Occurrents vs. Continuants</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Determinable vs. Determinate Validity</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Epistemic Abstraction (Acquaintance vs. Description)</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Ontological Abstraction (Emergence vs. Vicious Abstraction)</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Motivational Abstraction (Schema vs. Conatus)</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Subjective vs. Objective (epistemic)</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Subjective vs. Objective (ontological)</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Validity-theoretical Objectivity (Resultant Fittingness)</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Transeunt vs. immanent type of causality</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Participant vs. observer perspective</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Universality vs. specificity in objectivity</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Epistemicisation of objectivity (error diagnosis)</KATEGORIE>
  </KATEGORIEN>

  <REGELN>
    <REGEL1>Systematically identify all passages in which the terms "subjective," "objective," "abstract," or "concrete" are used explicitly or implicitly</REGEL1>
    <REGEL2>For each finding, determine in which of the five dimensions (epistemic, ontological, causal-analytical, validity-theoretical, abstraction-logical) the term is operating</REGEL2>
    <REGEL3>Check specifically for equivocations: Are properties from one dimension illegitimately transferred to another (e.g., epistemic privacy → ontological subjectivity)?</REGEL3>
    <REGEL4>Analyse the causal structure: Differentiate transeunt physicalism from emergentist approaches and assign occurrents and continuants correctly to their respective categories</REGEL4>
    <REGEL5>Formulate a reasoned judgement on the validity topology and check for possible errors (fallacy of universalisation, Vicious Abstraction, motivational abstraction gap)</REGEL5>
  </REGELN>

  <ANALYSEKRITERIEN>
    <KRITERIUM>Precise identification of all uses of "subjective/objective" and "abstract/concrete" according to the five dimensions</KRITERIUM>
    <KRITERIUM>Complete and correct reconstruction of the occurrent/continuant relationships and causal interfaces</KRITERIUM>
    <KRITERIUM>Clear distinction between validity-theoretical objectivity and nomological universality</KRITERIUM>
    <KRITERIUM>Well-founded diagnostics of Vicious Abstraction, epistemicisation errors, and motivational abstraction gaps</KRITERIUM>
    <KRITERIUM>Textual fidelity, categorial precision, and interdimensional consistency of the analysis</KRITERIUM>
  </ANALYSEKRITERIEN>

  <SPECIFIC_ANALYSIS_TAGS>
    <BEGRIFFSANALYSE ziel="Equivocation diagnostics of 'subjective', 'objective', 'abstract', 'concrete' in the text">
      Identify and clarify in which of the five dimensions the respective terms are used. Check for shifts of meaning, concealed equivocations, and possible Pickwickian-sense usages.
    </BEGRIFFSANALYSE>
    <ONTOLOGISCHEANALYSE ziel="Elucidation of the occurrent/continuant structure and emergence architecture">
      Analyse which entities in the text are treated as time-bound, consciousness-dependent occurrents and which as persisting, consciousness-independent continuants. Check whether emergent strata are recognised as legitimate ontological levels or miscategorised as Vicious Abstraction.
    </ONTOLOGISCHEANALYSE>
    <EPISTEMISCHEANALYSE ziel="Analysis of the modes of cognitive access: Enjoyment, Contemplation, Acquaintance, Description">
      Examine whether the text correctly separates epistemic accesses: Prehension (direct, private experience) from Discursive Inference (public, inferential apprehension). Check for illegitimate transfers of properties from the act of experiencing to the object experienced.
    </EPISTEMISCHEANALYSE>
    <GELTUNGSTHEORETISCHEANALYSE ziel="Validity-topological examination: Determinate vs. Determinable objectivity">
      Clarify whether the text falsely ties objective validity to nomological universality, or whether determinate-specific Resultant Fittingness is admitted as an independent form of validity. Reconstruct the text's validity topology.
    </GELTUNGSTHEORETISCHEANALYSE>
    <ABSTRAKTIONSANALYSE ziel="Three-dimensional abstraction diagnostics: epistemic, ontological, motivational">
      Analyse whether "abstraction" in the text is meant epistemically (lack of acquaintance), ontologically (emergence vs. Vicious Abstraction), or motivationally (schema without conatus). Examine the motivational abstraction gap between rule-knowledge and the execution of action.
    </ABSTRAKTIONSANALYSE>
  </SPECIFIC_ANALYSIS_TAGS>

  <METAPRUEFUNGEN>
    <PRUEFEKOHAERENZ />
    <PRUEFETEXTBEZUG />
    <FINDEPERSPEKTIVMODELLATER
```

 *<PERSPEKTIVITÄTSANALYSE> ... </PERSPEKTIVITÄTSANALYSE>*