Book review: 'Categories: A Study of a Concept in Western Philosophy and Political Thought'

Categories

 

To - Edinburgh University Press. 

Many thanks for this book -

O’Sullivan L. Categories: A Study of a Concept in Western Philosophy and Political Thought. Edinburgh University Press; 2024.

Requested in May, your response was quick. So, my apologies for the delay in picking this up. In mitigation, what I have been learning since, will help my reading of O'Sullivan's text.

As readers of W2tQ will have realised, there is a built in bias to my reading of any text. In short: It's all about the model. 

Categories was spotted in Foyles on a visit to London. It recommended itself instantly: title, Venn diagrams, sets and all.

A larger format paperback of 335 pages, the print quality, font and design match the values and usual care of the publisher. 

Given the subject, there are appropriately distinct indices of subjects and proper names.

At pages 2-3, I have already succumbed (my emphasis):

'As a result, there is widespread contemporary recognition that categories are both important and problematic. A non-exhaustive list of academic fields and disciplines in which issues to do with categories arise includes anthropology, critical theory, cultural studies, feminist studies, history, linguistics, philosophy, political science, political theory, post-colonial studies, post-modernism, post-humanism, psychoanalysis, psychology, rhetoric and sociology. It is clear, moreover, that this recognition reflects the situation in society at large. Popular authors articulate a pervasive feeling that "Things are in the wrong place. Religion is in the box where science used to be. Politics is on the shelf where you thought you left science the previous afternoon." Categorical worries have penetrated public as well as academic discourse.' pp.2-3.

But how did Luke O'Sullivan know? On page 3 having given us the informal uses of the word 'category':

'These, moreover, are only the informal uses; there are also formal, logical and mathematical, senses which we shall largely have to pass over.^'13

For me it is a disappointment that the formal aspects will be passed over. It is also a relief. 

For a model that is situated, as far as nursing theory, and models of nursing/care were concerned in 1997-8; Hodges' model had been left on the shelf - gathering dust.

I recognised a slide from a Youtube video this past week, care of Cheng I think? I'll share soon.

More to follow.

13 Eugenia Cheng, Cakes, Custard, and Category Theory Easy Recipes for Understanding Complex Mathematics (London: Profile Books, 2015) provides an introduction to mathematical category theory.

Host|Guest by Hospital Rooms

To mark its 10-year anniversary, arts and mental health charity Hospital Rooms presents a major exhibition at Victoria Miro this September.

Bringing together leading contemporary artists from across the Hospital Rooms programme, the exhibition features re-creations of monumental new artworks created for hospitals this year, alongside artists the organisation has collaborated with over the past decade. It reflects on the impact of transforming NHS mental health environments through art, while looking ahead to expanding access to creative programmes nationwide.

Host|Guest

My source: Ellee Su, Gallery, HOSPITAL ROOMS, FT Weekend Magazine, Number 1,192. 5 September 2026, pp.10-11.

Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015

I do remember reading about the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 in Resurgence & Ecology, Russell Warfield, Acting for the future. Issue 322. 2020. pp.20-24 [with another gem to follow]. Belatedly, here it is:

The Well-being of Future Generations Act

There are 7 connected well-being goals for Wales. They are:

• A prosperous Wales
• A resilient Wales
• A healthier Wales
• A more equal Wales
• A Wales of more cohesive communities
• A Wales of vibrant culture and thriving Welsh language
• A globally responsible Wales

 ...

This is about ensuring that future generations have at least the same quality of life as we do now. The act provides for better decision-making by ensuring that public bodies:

• take account of the long term
• help to prevent problems occurring or getting worse
• take an integrated approach
• take a collaborative approach, and
• consider and involve people of all ages and diversity.

Text source, video below with a 10th Anniversary video also:
 https://www.gov.wales/well-being-of-future-generations-wales

 

I wonder what tools they use to help the integration?

The Sciences: Points, lines, angles and perspectives on Domains

In Hodges' model the axes are presented - by convention - as perpendicular. From this it follows that the resulting four domains, or quadrants appear as equivalent in terms of the space they each occupy. There are many posts on the blog that present a 2x2 table. When in template form Hodges' model is also a potential corpus, empty apart from its structure, then there must surely be a gross asymmetry in the SCIENCES domain compared with the others, including the SPIRITUAL. Discuss?

#simplicity #complexity #folktheory #humanities #arts #humanistic #emotion #balance

See also: https://hodges-model.blogspot.com/2026/06/h2cm-domains-symmetry.html

Level Headed Questions about Identity

individual

|
INTERPERSONAL : SCIENCES             

humanistic ------------------------------- mechanistic

SOCIOLOGY : POLITICAL   

|

group

Individual - Person IDENTITY  Personality Character Traits   Spiritual identity   Religious identity brain in a vat  thought experiment    SPIRIT level	'LEVEL HEAD'
Social identity (cohesion) Collective & Cultural identity   Role & Family identity   Relational identity Languages media(-ted) identities	Local / Regional identity National identity: North-South :: West-East divide Organisational / Inst. identity Political   GLOBAL NORTH:SOUTH

The Legend of St Edmund and the Wolf

Source: 'The Bay Horse' local pub and Coffee House.

Previously: 'identity' : 'philosophy' : 'alcohol' : 'South' : 'language'

ii Thoughts re. Ecosia's AI Chat 'answer'

The previous post has been updated, to the prompt is added:

 'Please provide sources and references.

[If you are new here, and too Hodges' model please see the bibliography in the sidebar.] 

A 'human' reading (still) makes me wonder if the 'answer' is what I want to hear (as a user)? Is it worrying that the first provides a 'Conclusion' the latest does not. The table is helpful as I believe that Hodges' model has a role across research (and political!) -isms through methodologies and methods. The model can also encompass ('eat'!) aspects of scale, or level.

The reply still gives me quadraphonic joy (if read out-loud). Not only are the domains recognised, but the LLM/agent ai takes the intrapersonal / interpersonal in its stride (from the blog?). Subjects related to each of the domains are given in brackets. 

There is of course a bias (several) in the prompt, as the care domains were never intended to be comparable. It is positive that each domain is seen as having its own specific scope and function. Over twenty years notes were started on a paper on Hodges' model and its role/function in helping to define 'scope of practice'. Significantly, in the UK the rise of associate positions across disciplines has provoked much debate, vitriol (on X and union and lobbying) and soul searching in certain professional groups. Given the increasing importance of the global health and social care workforce this trend is reflected globally. A situation set to be extended with uncertainties and tensions exacerbated by artificial intelligence in practice.

Before 'explaining' the asymmetries (in points 1-4) it seems the domains are complementary (for all their differences), and provide a holistic underpinning for the model as a whole (my reading).

1. Scope and Focus 

Interesting, how the science and sociology domains are described as broad. Perhaps I am underestimating the depth/density of sociology, after all folk theory is found there? Unfortunately, we can also add a myriad of conspiracy theories? Sociology can also lay claim to quite a few constructions of its own. Including aesthetics as a bridge to architecture and design(?).

On 'X', Hodges' model has been described negatively as inviting / fostering generalism. So, this is a bad thing? Is it not strange then that your Advanced Nurse Practitioner, Consultant doctors (all specialities) and students cross-curricula can all use Hodges' model? The fact that my own responses were never engaged has helped train my thought. Here the relevance of the model to students and continued professional development is made through generalizable knowledge.

The response to the political domain is supportive, acknowledging resource allocation and the distinction between individual and collective (see for example):

S. Bettiol, P. Jones, H. A. Onyedikachi, and W. G. Kernohan, (2026) Bridging Gaps in Oral Health Frameworks: Mapping With Hodges' Health Career - Care Domains - Model, Journal of Public Health Dentistry. 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1111/jphd.70034.  

I've seen tweets today regards IQ reductions in younger people. This is one reason for support of the top-left mental domain being designated as 'Intrapersonal – Interpersonal'. Our interpersonal skills and awareness are surely dependent upon our achieving a given level of inner mental life? Encouraging to see how subjectivity and objectivity is assigned too. Although, I think I'm in an echo chamber!

2. Epistemological Differences

In arguing for a model of health and social care that goes beyond:

• medical model;
• bio-medical model;
• bio-psycho-social model.

Reading 1-2 from the perspective of the Intrapersonal – Interpersonal domain you see how limiting this is, if an individual in a mental health/illness/mental capacity context can only point to sciences and sociological domains. Indeed, they may be relying guardians and advocates as they are unable to does this and raise the political matter of their rights. Without the POLITICAL domain (or as a result of it - neglect, structural racism) there is no law enshrining independent advocacy...

3. Practical Application in Care

To care is to act. Think about triage and emergency response.

Now in the 21st century 'care' must include self-care, health and social care, and (delayed or not you decide?) planetary care.

This necessitates a change of mindset at an individual and collective level. Consider the literacies that (again) young people must master to be effective, productive and happy citizens tomorrow?

So the following is a gift (in my eyes): 

"This means the intrapersonal-interpersonal domain is not just another 'content area' but a lens through which all other domains are experienced and integrated."

4. Hierarchy of Integration

'While the domains are conceptually equal in Hodges’ model' ..

This is interesting in itself.

[There does seem a emphasis upon the Intrapersonal – Interpersonal domain in this answer?]

This is quite a step, as the idea of a nexus and integration are picked up; and pointing to what are the determinants of health:

'For example:

• A scientific understanding of depression (e.g., serotonin levels) must be interpreted through the intrapersonal experience of the individual.
• A sociological analysis of healthcare disparities must be understood through the political structures that enable or inhibit change.
• A political decision about resource allocation must be filtered through intrapersonal values and priorities.'

I'm pleased I did this, as long as I'm not being trapped in an epistemological cocoon: otherwise known as a circle. Apart from a few occasions, I have not used AI/LLMs, perhaps it is time to explore more? I'd like to preserve my naivety, especially were maths is concerned. I'm not sure of what baggage I may pick up and lack the knowledge to interpret?

Previous post:  https://hodges-model.blogspot.com/2026/06/h2cm-domains-symmetry.html

[Updated] AI Chat: Are the domains of Hodges' model comparable?

In drafting a future post: 'The Sciences: points, lines, angles and perspectives on domains', I thought I would ask Ecosia's AI Chat a related question, here is the (quick) prompt and reply:

PROMPT: 
In Hodges' model there are four care, or knowledge domains. The four domains are the sciences, sociology, political, and intrapersonal – interpersonal domain. In terms of potential content are these domains comparable, or is there an essential asymmetry? Please provide sources and references.

(I have saved the prompt for future reference and refinement.)

RESPONSE: [updated 21st June 2026]

Hodges’ model (also known as the Health Career Model or h2cm) is a conceptual framework that organizes knowledge and care into four quadrants, each representing a distinct domain of human experience and knowledge. These domains are:

1. Sciences (empirical, biological, and physical sciences)
2. Sociology (social structures, relationships, and community)
3. Political (power, policy, governance, and resource allocation)
4. Intrapersonal – Interpersonal (psychological, emotional, and relational aspects of the self and others)

Are the Four Domains Comparable or Asymmetrical?

The four domains in Hodges’ model are not strictly symmetrical in terms of their content, scope, or application. While they are presented as equal in structure (each occupying one quadrant of the model), their potential content, theoretical foundations, and practical implications can vary significantly. Here’s why:

1. Differences in Scope and Focus

• Sciences (Quadrant 1):
  This quadrant focuses on empirical, measurable, and biological aspects of health and care, such as anatomy, physiology, and pathophysiology. Its content is often highly specialized, technical, and evidence-based, rooted in natural sciences like biology and chemistry.

  • Example: The role of hormones in stress response or the pathophysiology of diabetes.

• Sociology (Quadrant 2):
  This quadrant addresses social structures, culture, and community dynamics. Its content is broader and more interpretive, drawing from sociology, anthropology, and social psychology.

  • Example: The impact of socioeconomic status on health outcomes or the role of family support in recovery.

• Political (Quadrant 3):
  This quadrant examines power, policy, governance, and resource distribution. Its content is highly contextual and often contested, influenced by political science, economics, and public policy.

  • Example: The effect of healthcare policies on access to services or the role of advocacy in shaping health priorities.

• Intrapersonal – Interpersonal (Quadrant 4):
  This quadrant focuses on individual psychology, emotions, and relationships. Its content is highly subjective and variable, drawing from psychology, psychotherapy, and ethics.

  • Example: A patient’s personal beliefs about illness or the dynamics of a therapeutic relationship.

2. Differences in Methodology

• Sciences and Political domains often rely on quantitative methods (e.g., experiments, statistical analysis, policy evaluations).
• Sociology and Intrapersonal domains frequently use qualitative methods (e.g., interviews, case studies, ethnography).
• This methodological diversity can create asymmetry in how knowledge is generated, validated, and applied.

3. Differences in Practical Application

• Sciences and Political domains  are often system-level and influence macro-level decisions (e.g., clinical guidelines, healthcare policies).
• Sociology and Intrapersonal domains are more individual- or community-level, focusing on personalized care, cultural competence, and therapeutic relationships.
• This can lead to asymmetry in impact, where some domains (e.g., Political) shape broad systems, while others (e.g., Intrapersonal) focus on direct human experience.

4. Theoretical Foundations

• The Sciences and Political domains are grounded in positivist and structuralist theories, emphasizing objectivity and external reality.
• The Sociology and Intrapersonal domains are influenced by interpretivist and constructivist theories, emphasizing subjectivity and lived experience.
• This theoretical diversity can create asymmetry in how knowledge is perceived and valued in different contexts.

Is There an Essential Asymmetry?

Yes, there is an essential asymmetry in the potential content of the four domains. While the model presents them as equal in structure, their content, methods, applications, and theoretical foundations are not interchangeable. The domains complement each other but serve different purposes in understanding and delivering care.

Sources and References

1. Conceptual Overview of Hodges’ Model:

   • Hodges’ Model: A Cognitive Periplus for - WikiEducator (PDF)
   • Hodges’ Model: Welcome to the QUAD
   • Hodges’ Health Care Model as a Framework for Quality

2. Theoretical Foundations:

   • Hodges’ Health Career Model and its role and potential application
   • Hodges’ model: the Sustainable Development Goals and public health

3. Discussions on Asymmetry and Complementarity:

   • The model’s holistic intent is emphasized in Hodges’ Health Care Model as a Framework for Quality, but its quadrants are not identical in content or application.
   • The differences in methodology and scope are discussed in Hodges’ Health Career Model and its role and potential application.

Summary Table: Asymmetry in Hodges’ Model Domains

Domain	Content Focus	Methodology	Theoretical Foundation	Level of Application
Sciences	Biological, empirical data	Quantitative	Positivist	Macro (systems, clinical)
Sociology	Social structures, community	Qualitative/Quantitative	Interpretivist, Structuralist	Meso (groups, communities)
Political	Power, policy, governance	Quantitative/Qualitative	Structuralist, Critical Theory	Macro (systems, policy)
Intrapersonal-Interpersonal	Psychology, emotions, relationships	Qualitative	Constructivist, Humanistic	Micro (individual, relational)

PROMPT: 
In Hodges' model there are four care, or knowledge domains. The four domains are the sciences, sociology, political, and intrapersonal – interpersonal domain. In terms of potential content are these domains comparable, or is there an essential asymmetry?

 

In Hodges’ model, the four care (or knowledge) domains are:

1. Sciences (biological, physiological)
2. Sociology (social, cultural, environmental)
3. Political (legal, policy, organizational)
4. Intrapersonal – Interpersonal (psychological, emotional, relational)

These domains are not strictly comparable in terms of content, scope, or function. Instead, they represent complementary perspectives that together form a holistic framework for understanding human health, well-being, and care. Here’s why there is an essential asymmetry between them:

1. Scope and Focus

• Sciences and Sociology are broad, well-established academic disciplines with extensive theoretical and empirical foundations. They provide generalizable knowledge about biological processes and social systems.
• Political is more narrowly focused on power structures, governance, and resource allocation. While critical for systemic change, it is less about individual experience and more about collective frameworks.
• Intrapersonal – Interpersonal is deeply personal and subjective, focusing on individual psychology, emotions, and relationships. It is less about universal laws and more about unique, context-dependent experiences.

This makes the intrapersonal-interpersonal domain inherently asymmetrical compared to the others, as it deals with subjectivity and variability rather than objective or structural phenomena.

2. Epistemological Differences

• Sciences, Sociology, and Political domains rely on external observation, measurement, and analysis. They are rooted in positivist or structuralist traditions, where knowledge is often generalized.
• Intrapersonal – Interpersonal is rooted in interpretivist and phenomenological traditions, where knowledge is co-created through subjective experience and dialogue. It resists universal generalization.

This creates a fundamental asymmetry in how knowledge is produced and validated across the domains.

3. Practical Application in Care

• The Sciences, Sociology, and Political domains provide frameworks for action (e.g., medical treatments, social policies, legal rights). They are instrumental in shaping systems and interventions.
• The Intrapersonal – Interpersonal domain is transformative—it shapes how individuals perceive, interpret, and respond to care. It is the domain where meaning is made and agency is exercised.

This means the intrapersonal-interpersonal domain is not just another “content area” but a lens through which all other domains are experienced and integrated.

4. Hierarchy of Integration

While the domains are conceptually equal in Hodges’ model, in practice, the intrapersonal-interpersonal domain often acts as the nexus where the other domains intersect. For example:

• A scientific understanding of depression (e.g., serotonin levels) must be interpreted through the intrapersonal experience of the individual.
• A sociological analysis of healthcare disparities must be understood through the political structures that enable or inhibit change.
• A political decision about resource allocation must be filtered through intrapersonal values and priorities.

This integrative role makes the intrapersonal-interpersonal domain asymmetrical in function, even if not in formal status.

Conclusion: Essential Asymmetry

The four domains are not comparable in content or function. Instead:

• The Sciences, Sociology, and Political domains provide structural and systemic knowledge.
• The Intrapersonal – Interpersonal domain provides subjective and relational knowledge, which is essential for meaning-making and agency.

The asymmetry arises from the epistemological and practical differences between objective/systemic knowledge and subjective/experiential knowledge. Hodges’ model emphasizes that all domains are necessary, but they operate in fundamentally different ways.

Glossaries - calques, standards and what is, or can be canonical?

Post Marrakech and WCCS26 I'm still contemplating on matters 'complex' and 'complexity', across complex systems and complex care. We humans (and this one in-particular) have a penchant for compunding complexity, adding complications. Our languages are a case in point. 

As the conference demonstrated mathematical is central to the discovery of chaotic and complex systems. Maths itself preempted the discovery of the Lorenz System, and the Mandelbrot Set.

Efforts to look at Hodges' model mathematically has resulted in a small draft comparative glossary (4-5 terms). In addition to the history of chemistry and its adaptation of mathematical symbols, I soon came across complex numbers, complex dynamics, complex mathematics (don't worry I know my limits). But, symplectic geometry! What is that?

Apparently, 'The term "symplectic" is a calque of "complex" introduced by Hermann Weyl in 1939.'
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symplectic).

So, over decades of ward meetings, reviews, care plans it was symplectic patients, symplectic care and situations all the time? Where am I heading with this? Probably nowhere in particular. There's still the risk of a meeting c/o gravity with the floor. I've been fascinated with the way words such as design and architecture are conjoined and added to things that do not qualify, at least from the purists perspective. This is joy of languages, they change constantly. 

Familiar with 'standard' in the clinical and informatics sense; 'canonical (form)' has come up within maths. It occurs in health too:

Graham, M., Winter, A. K., Ferrari, M., Grenfell, B., Moss, W. J., Azman, A. S., Metcalf, C. J. E., & Lessler, J. (2019). Measles and the canonical path to elimination. Science, 364(6440), 584–587. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26649426 

Sepehri, A. (2015). A Critique of Grossman’s Canonical Model of Health Capital. International Journal of Health Services, 45(4), 762–778. http://www.jstor.org/stable/45140527

Lee, H.-S., Paik, M. C., & Lee, J. H. (2009). Estimating a Multivariate Familial Correlation Using Joint Models for Canonical Correlations: Application to Memory Score Analysis from Familial Hispanic Alzheimer’s Disease Study. Biometrics, 65(2), 463–469. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25502307 

Voit, E. O. (2000). Canonical Modeling: Review of Concepts with Emphasis on Environmental Health. Environmental Health Perspectives, 108, 895–909. https://doi.org/10.2307/3454323 

 

Goddu, A. (1985). The Effect of Canonical Prohibitions on the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Paris in the Middle Ages. Medizinhistorisches Journal, 20(4), 342–362. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25803849

 In drawing up a glossary, and starting with a blank sheet (that is not Hodges' model) this is all worth consideration. Could Hodges' model find a place as a canonical form - even clinically?

CFP: Nonsense in Language and Thought

Guest editor: 
Krystian Bogucki (Polish Academy of Sciences)

Deadline for submissions: 
the 31st of July 2026 

Description:

Studia Semiotyczne (Semiotic Studies) invites submissions for a special issue of the journal. Papers should be written in English and prepared for blind review. 

An interest in nonsense was a hallmark of the early analytic philosophy. Bertrand Russell (1908) thought that a theory of nonsense could help us avoid some daunting paradoxes in logic. Ludwig Wittgenstein (1922, 1953) and Rudolf Carnap (1931) recognised nonsense as a fundamental concept for philosophical criticism. They claimed that much of philosophical discourse is defective in the most fundamental way: it is neither true nor false, it does not consist of thoughts and propositions ? it is nonsense. According to the early Wittgenstein, philosophers want to describe the nature of the world, thought, language and ethics, but they unwittingly fall into nonsense. The Tractatus was supposed to free us from this troublesome position by presenting a perspicuous notation. On the other hand, the later Wittgenstein claimed that we should compare deceptive philosophical images with our ordinary ways of thinking and speaking in order to avoid nonsense. Philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday, so we must always remember the everyday use of concepts. For Carnap, propositions should be reducible to sense data and constructed according to the rules of logical syntax in order to be meaningful. 

Later, the topic of nonsense was discussed by Alfred Ayer, Gilbert Ryle, Willard V. O. Quine, Arthur Prior, Richard Routley and Georg H. von Wright, among others. Since the late 1970s, however, the interest in nonsense has faded. Only recently, some important works have been published. The first important stimulus came from foundational works on theories of nonsense (Cappelen 2012, 2013; Camp 2004; Glock 2015; Magidor 2009, 2013). The second source of the revival of interest in nonsense was Wittgenstein scholarship on the austere and substantial conceptions of nonsense (Conant 2001; Diamond 1995, 2005; Glock 2004; Hacker 2003; Moore 2003; Sullivan 2003). Some works also examined the relation of nonsense to other phenomena (Gotham 2017, Keller and Keller 2021, Shaw 2015, Sorensen 2003). 

The important questions to be addressed in the forthcoming volume are (to name but a few):

• What are the sources of nonsense? 
• Are some parts of philosophical and non-philosophical discourse nonsense?
• What is the relation between nonsense and figurative speech?
• Is it at all possible to be wrong whether our own thoughts are meaningful? 

We hope that the special issue of Studia Semiotyczne will further strengthen and deepen the scholarly interest in nonsense. 

Possible topics include, but are not limited to:

Theories of nonsense
Nonsense and logical syntax
Nonsense and category mistakes
Nonsense and figurative speech (e.g. metaphor, metonymy)
Nonsense and fiction
History of the concept of nonsense (in particular Wittgenstein's and the Vienna Circle's views on nonsense)
Nonsense and understanding
Nonsense and illusions of sense
Nonsense and quantification
Nonsense and linguistics
Nonsense and ineffability
Nonsense, knowledge-how and knowledge-that
Logics of nonsense
Nonsense and semantic paradoxes
How to diagnose philosophical nonsense?
Metaphilosophical and methodological issues concerning nonsense

In order to submit the paper one is kindly asked to submit the manuscript by sending it to:
krystian.bogucki AT ifispan.edu.pl and studiasemiotyczne AT pts.edu.pl 

All submitted papers will be double-blind peer-reviewed.

My source (and emphasis):
Philos-L "The Liverpool List" is run by the Department of Philosophy, University of Liverpool 
https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/philosophy/philos-l/

Wittgenstein's - Tractatus

Apparently, Wittgenstein walked away from philosophy after publication of the Tractatus. He thought he had solved the problems of philosophy, logic and reality.

In trying to ‘see’ Hodges’ model, in mathematical terms, there may be lessons in Wittegenstein’s approach, both in content and style. Of course, as a non-mathematician, I probably should leave well-alone; and stick to nursing. But that is the problem: from 1987-88 there is a need for a different perspective, even if this is a personal challenge. As with many ‘reviews’ here, we can look at Wittengenstein’s work, reflect upon it, and consider how it relates to the purposes, structures and content of Hodges’ model.

The Tractatus’s first line then, offers a warm welcome.

‘The world is everything that is the case.’ [I]

Making the decision to become a nurse and enrolling as a student makes you an educational and workforce demographic case.

Once a student in the university lecture theatre, you hopefully whether consciously, or not are exposed to the theory – practice gap; as you yearn to be on your first placement. Now it you who is seeking ‘cases’. As we live, and statistics roll and tally, the question of caseness (and categories) is key, one that is carried around even if not always active, recognised as such.

As noted in the previous post, we can for Hodges’ model (and other models, frameworks it must be said) think of ‘case’ as a, or the situation. 

A mathematical approach to Hodges’ model involves looking at things, concepts, people as objects. This includes patients and carers. In terms of a project worthy of pursuing in nursing and other disciplines involved in healthcare, this mathematization presents a non-trivial challenge. A fully-deserved response would be: 'What have you done to the aptitude for care and caring attitude? You've cancelled - subtracted it!' Humour aside:

'In order to know an object, I must know not its external but all its internal qualities.' [2.01231] 

Is this equivalent to us getting to know our patient / client and their socio-political context? 

‘The way in which objects hang together in the atomic fact is the structure of the atomic fact.’ [2.032] 

It is a help that Wittgenstein points to structure (crumbs of understanding are welcome here, as incremental steps). In formulating Hodges’ model we first identify the axes. It is the axes that then provide a space, four domains in total, to frame the objects that we decide; or, as the situation dictates, what concepts are placed in the domains of Hodges' model.

There is a successive series that follows, combining place, space and logic: ‘The proposition determines a place in logical space: the existence of this logical place is guaranteed by the existence of the constituent parts alone, by the existence of the significant proposition.’ [3.4]

‘The propositional sign and the logical coordinates : that is the logical place.’ [3.41]

‘The geometrical and the logical place agree in that each is the possibility of an existence.’ [3.411]

‘Although a proposition may only determine one place in logical space, the whole logical space must already be given by it.
(Otherwise denial, the logical sum, the logical product. etc., would always introduce new elements -in co-ordination.) 
(The logical scaffolding round the picture determines the logical space. The proposition reaches through the whole logical space.)' [3.42]

While Wittgenstein came to view ‘the picture theory of meaning’ as incorrect, as a conceptual framework and diagrammatic resource Hodges’ model is closely tied to this form of representation.

Of course, the logic at work here, is far from mathematical, but there is surely a logic.

'Formal concepts cannot, like proper concepts, be presented by a function.' [4.126]

'There is therefore really a sense in which in philosophy we can talk of a non-psychological I.
The I occurs in philosophy through the fact that the "world is my world'".
The philosophical I is not the man, not the human body or the human soul of which psychology treats, but the metaphysical subject, the limit - not a part of the world.' [5.641] 

'Although the spots in our picture are geometrical figures, geometry can obviously say nothing about their actual form and position. But the network is purely geometrical, and all its properties can be given a priori.

Laws, like the law of causation, etc., treat of the network and not of what the network describes.' [6.35]

There is much more in this work, and much that remains a challenge. Many commentators have written and said in interviews that the Tractatus rewards re-reading and some sentences stay with you for life (The Great Philosophers BBC TV). 

I'm still seeking mine.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5740/5740-pdf.pdf

What! Nursing reduced to objects! Do you realise what you're saying?

Wittgenstein to the rescue?

Revisting a theme, and while it is not new - as in use of objected oriented approaches in health informatics; as a nurse, to suggest there's a need to view the elements of care systems as a series of objects surely runs counter to nursing's theory, practice, professional standing and values.

Or, does Wittgenstein come to the rescue in his 'Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus'?

'2.01231 In order to know an object, I must know not its external but all its internal qualities'.

[My emphasis - and as ever high degree of selectivity.] 

In reading 'internal qualities' I can equate internal with a person; and qualities with subjectivism, what is inherently seen as humanistic, a set of characteristics, and properties. Can it be argued that in the context of healthcare and person-centredness we can also take 'internal' as potentially referring to what happens in the mind, an individual's mental life, for example? This can be applied physically too. To bodily properties, which ultimately are internal genetically, and influenced by - expressed in-part - by the external environment.

While I sort books, creating space, there is the small matter that Wittgenstein walked away from philosophy after the Tractatus was published. Then, realising he had not answered the questions concerning human language and reality, he returned to Cambridge and his studies, with Philosophical Investigations published after his death.

Does this invalidate the thoughts above?

Another post to follow drawing from the Tractatus. 

Previous posts:

Reflection: programming and caring II

Abstract [working] Hodges’ model as a mathematical object, a lens for social care and inclusion: category theory or category mistake?

Person to object: Surely you're joking* ...!

Slingshot AI? Meet the Earthshot (Prize ...!)

Slingshot AI

Ash
"the first AI designed for therapy" 

'In January 2024, we set out to build a 
foundation model for psychology. 

The mental health crisis sweeping across 
our communities isn’t going anywhere, 
and what we’re doing clearly isn’t enough. 
Therapists have one of the hardest jobs in the world,
and there just aren't enough people 
or resources to help everyone in need.
And we all know in our hearts that everyone 
could use some help with their mental health. ...'

'We need a foundation model for psychology.'

 

🔷 

 

Plus a bit more ...? 

 

INDIVIDUAL

|

    INTERPERSONAL    :     SCIENCES               

HUMANISTIC --------------------------------------  MECHANISTIC      

SOCIOLOGY  :   POLITICAL 

|

GROUP

The four primary therapeutic approaches used by Ash are: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT): Focuses on identifying and modifying dysfunctional thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT): Teaches skills for emotion regulation, distress tolerance, and interpersonal effectiveness. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT): Focuses on accepting difficult emotions while committing to actions that align with personal values. Psychodynamic Therapy: Explores unconscious patterns and early life experiences to understand current behaviors. [ Google AI Overview* ]

?

?

?

Our 'Intelligence' is embodied.
The whole of Hodges' model is / can be 
embodied - embedded within the SPIRITUAL.

My source: Electronic therapy - Machines of loving grace, The Economist, November 15th-21st, 2025. Vol. 457: #9474. pp.72-73.

 *"slingshot ai - what are the four therapeutic approaches used by ash?"

 

Previously: 'health' : 'ai' : 'parity of esteem' : 'foundation' : 'language' : 'embodied'

Human-Technology Lecture Series – 25 March

Dear Colleagues,

The BCS Sociotechnical Specialist Group and the STEIN-UX Research Group at UWL are launching the online Human-Technology Lecture Series, connecting critical perspectives on digital technologies and design with insights about people, organisations and society.

Our first lecture is:

Thinking Language, Fast and Slow: Speed, Data, and Decolonial Inquiry

📅 25 March 2026
🕛 12:00–13:00 (UK time)
💻 Online
🎟 Free to attend

Speaker: Dr. Lindsey DeWitt Prat, whose work explores how language, culture and technology intersect in the development of AI systems.

Talk Synopsis:

As language increasingly becomes training data for AI, timing begins to shape power. Decisions about datasets are made quickly, while their consequences unfold over much longer horizons. What does it mean to design responsibly with — rather than after — underserved language communities?

Drawing on industry work with African languages and large language models, alongside research examining how AI data is produced globally, the talk reflects on why anthropological, participatory and human-centred approaches need to be integrated early in technological development.

Register here:
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/thinking-language-fast-and-slow-speed-data-and-decolonial-inquiry-tickets-1983958108108?aff=oddtdtcreator

Best wishes,
José

Professor José Abdelnour Nocera

School of Computing and Engineering

Head of Sociotechnical Innovation and User Experience Research Group

University of West London

St Mary’s Road, Ealing – London W5 5RF

https://www.uwl.ac.uk/stein-ux

... and my source via the SOCIOTECH list.

The land speaks through Bears & Peoples: Together

Figure 2

ABSTRACT

Landscape genetic analyses of wildlife populations can exclude variation in a broad suite of potential spatiotemporal correlates, including consideration of how such variation might have similarly influenced people over time. Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) populations in what is now known as coastal British Columbia, Canada, provide an opportunity to examine the possible effects of a complex set of landscape and human influences on genetic structure. In this collaboration among the Nuxalk, Haíɫzaqv, Kitasoo/Xai’xais, Gitga’at, and Wuikinuxv First Nations and conservation scientists, we characterized patterns of genetic differentiation in the grizzly bear, a species of high cultural value, by genotyping 22 microsatellite loci from noninvasively collected hair samples over a 23,500 km² area. We identified three well-differentiated groups. Resistance surfaces, which incorporated past and present human use, settlement, and landscape resistant features, could not explain this pattern of genetic variation. Notably, however, we detected spatial alignment between Indigenous language families and grizzly bear genetic groups. Grizzly bears sampled within an area represented by a given language family were significantly similar to those sampled within that language family (P = 0.001) and significantly divergent to those sampled outside the language family (P = 0.001). This spatial co-occurrence suggests that grizzly bear and human groups have been shaped by the landscape in similar ways, creating a convergence of grizzly bear genetic and human linguistic diversity. Additionally, grizzly bear management units designated by the provincial government currently divide an otherwise continuous group and exclude recently colonized island populations that are genetically continuous with adjacent mainland groups. This work provides not only insight into how ecological and geographic conditions can similarly shape the distribution of people and wildlife but also new genetic evidence to support renewed, locally led management of grizzly bears into the future.

INDIVIDUAL

|

    INTERPERSONAL    :     SCIENCES               

HUMANISTIC --------------------------------------  MECHANISTIC      

SOCIOLOGY  :   POLITICAL 

|

GROUP

'This work is dedicated to the late Nuaqawa (Evelyn Windsor), who taught us that people learned their language and way of life from the bears.'	Geographic distance Spatial overlap Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) Population genetic structure Landscape genetics
Biocultural diversity Indigenous language families Human linguistic diversity Awareness - Respect	[What price the future? pj]

Henson, L. H., N. Balkenhol, R. Gustas, M. Adams, J. Walkus, W. G. Housty, A. V. Stronen, J. Moody, C. Service, D. Reece, B. M. vonHoldt, I. McKechnie, B. F. Koop, and C. T. Darimont. 2021. Convergent geographic patterns between grizzly bear population genetic structure and Indigenous language groups in coastal British Columbia, Canada. Ecology and Society 26(3):7.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12443-260307

My source:
Roman Goergen. Grizzly spoken here! Resurgence & Ecologist, July/August2023: 339: pp.10-11.

See also: https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/documents/p21799/85674E.pdf

Previously: 'landscape' : 'ecology'