<TOPOLOGIE />
<TOPOLOGIE /> is the localisation module of the PTL system. It does not first ask what a text asserts, but where it stands: in which space of possible alternatives its position lies, which regions of fact it brings together, and which concrete constellation it opens up. The present version combines two movements for this purpose. The first is the classical logical topology following C. D. Broad – synopsis (the joint viewing of normally separated Regions of Fact) and typology (the spanning of the logical space in which the text position occupies exactly one place). The second is new: work in the terrain, an entity-neutral mapping that renders visible entities, roles, relations, terrain markers, overlays, epistemic accesses, evaluative points of view and normative claims, before any theory is imposed upon them.
➔ Theories, concepts and perspectives are maps, not the terrain itself.
➔ The authority of the procedure lies in clarification and corrigibility, not in ultimate justification.
The decisive difference from the previous version: <TOPOLOGIE /> does not end in permanent suspension. After the inventory of entities, the relief-tagging of the levels, the overlay balance and the check of the transitions (knowledge → description → evaluation → obligation), the relevant points of view are arranged as vectors – with direction, strength, range and defeaters – into a composed fit. The result is a determinate, yet revisable positioning. It is disciplined by two safeguards: negative control (role is not ontology, relevance is not decisiveness, map is not terrain) and projection control, in which the procedure keeps its own optics visible instead of presenting them as neutrality.
Use with the AI
In short: one provides the AI with the template together with the text to be analysed and lets it work through the procedure in the given order. Five pieces of guidance:
- Observe the order of the modules. The requires dependencies first – <BEGRIFFSANALYSE /> and <ARGUMENTATIONSANALYSE /> before the topological work. Without clarified concepts and a visible argument structure, the terrain tips over.
- Rules in sequence. The eleven <REGEL> steps are a working procedure, not a list of topics: first entities, then levels, terrain markers, overlays, addressing – and only at the end vectors and positioning. Each rule should be completed before the next begins.
- Everything textually evidenced. <PRUEFETEXTBEZUG /> requires that every entity, every transition and every vector be anchored in a passage of the text. Whatever remains without evidence belongs in the limitations, not in the judgement.
- Steer via the comments. The self-closing meta-checks (<PRUEFEKARTEGELÄNDE />, <PRUEFEROLLEONTOLOGIE /> …) work silently in the background. Anyone wishing to sharpen, weaken or switch off a check alters the accompanying comment text or removes the tag – thus adjusting the effect without breaking the structure.
- End with the positioning sentence. The <STANDARDOUTPUT> scheme prescribes the target form. If, at the end, a sentence of the form "Under description D … position P is answerable as a composed fit; it would need to be revised if …" is missing, the analysis has missed its own goal.
➔ The template is not a rigid set of rules. Every rule, every criterion and every comment can be altered – the competence lies in the prompt, not in the tag.
<TOPOLOGIE> ... </TOPOLOGIE>
<!-- ============================================================
PTL Template: PhilosophicalTurn.Topology
Profile: Logical Topology and Fieldwork
Role: Maps the logical, systematic, discursive and
practical field of a text. Combines Broad's synopsis/typology
(localisation within logical space) with an entity-neutral fieldwork:
entities, roles, relations, terrain markers, overlays,
epistemic accesses, evaluative viewpoints, normative claims, burdens of
justification, defeaters and moral vectors are made visible.
The aim is a responsible positioning as a composed fit.
============================================================ -->
<PTL>
<ARBEITSDEFINITION>
Topological analysis is the disciplined practice of situating a text, an
argument or a practical problem within the terrain in such a way that
its logical space, its entities, its levels, its concepts,
its transitions, its normative vectors and its blind spots
become visible. Theories, concepts and perspectives are treated as maps
or overlays, not as the terrain itself. The authority
of the procedure lies not in ultimate justification but in clarification,
transition control, corrigibility and self-application.
</ARBEITSDEFINITION>
<ZIELE>
<ZIEL>Typological localisation: determining the position of the text's stance
within the logical space of possible theoretical alternatives (Broad's matrix method) –
which alternatives are excluded, which are affirmed, which combinations
remain unthought.</ZIEL>
<ZIEL>Synoptic integration: bringing together normally separate
regions of fact (natural science, experience, institution, norm, value,
law, technology, form of life) into a coherent structural picture.</ZIEL>
<ZIEL>Opening of the terrain: mapping the concrete constellation of
entities, roles, relations, concepts, forms of knowledge, values, norms,
power relations, institutions and possible consequences.</ZIEL>
<ZIEL>Transition control: reconstruction and examination of the bridges from knowledge
to description, from description to evaluation, from evaluation to obligation and
from obligation to positioning – each transition with an identifiable
bridging principle.</ZIEL>
<ZIEL>Vectorial composition: ordering relevant moral viewpoints
as vectors (direction, strength, reach, bridging principle, defeaters) into
a determinate, corrigible fit – no addition, no
permanent suspension.</ZIEL>
<ZIEL>Projection control: self-application of the procedure – examining whether
one's own map, method, anthropology, ontology or theory of value becomes
a concealed final authority.</ZIEL>
</ZIELE>
<THEMA>Logical topology and fieldwork: typological localisation within
the space of theoretical alternatives and entity-neutral mapping of a
concrete practical constellation up to the composed fit.</THEMA>
<PERSPEKTIVEN>
<PERSPEKTIVE>Semantic</PERSPEKTIVE>
<PERSPEKTIVE>Ontological</PERSPEKTIVE>
<PERSPEKTIVE>Epistemic-validity-theoretical</PERSPEKTIVE>
<PERSPEKTIVE>Practical-deontic</PERSPEKTIVE>
<PERSPEKTIVE>Inclusion-theoretical</PERSPEKTIVE>
<PERSPEKTIVE>Topological-synoptic (five-level relief)</PERSPEKTIVE>
</PERSPEKTIVEN>
<METHODEN>
<METHODE>Synoptic integration: comparing isolated conceptual
systems, discourses or areas of fact for coherence, tension and
freedom from contradiction.</METHODE>
<METHODE>Typological matrix formation: spanning the logically possible
combinations of premises, categories or positions in order to locate
the exact position of the text's stance.</METHODE>
<METHODE>Inventory of entities and clarification of roles: recording all entities and
their roles (agent, affected party, value-bearer, medium, condition, risk,
resource, institution, process, future entity, representational
object).</METHODE>
<METHODE>Relief tagging: situating the analysis at the
semantic, ontological, epistemic-validity-theoretical, practical-deontic
and inclusion-theoretical level.</METHODE>
<METHODE>Terrain-marker analysis: examining central concepts as
orientation markers for visibility gain, concealment, tipping condition,
equivocation, Pickwickian sense and normative charge.</METHODE>
<METHODE>Overlay work: reading theories, disciplines, institutions,
models and perspectives as partial mappings – not as camps
or decision machines.</METHODE>
<METHODE>Addressing and de-addressing diagnostics: analysis of how
entities can appear within the space of reasons, who is represented, who
disappears and where visibility itself becomes functionalising.</METHODE>
<METHODE>Epistemic translation chain: examining how signs, data,
models, experiences, traces or effects are converted into
justified attributions.</METHODE>
<METHODE>Transition and inference control: checking the inferences between
knowledge, description, evaluation, obligation and positioning; deduction,
induction and coherence as different modes of movement.</METHODE>
<METHODE>Level separation of value-bearer, validity and obligation: distinguishing
where a value lies, who recognises/processes it and when this gives rise to
a state-obligation or an action-obligation.</METHODE>
<METHODE>Relevance–decisiveness examination: distinguishing between what
counts and what is decisive in the concrete constellation.</METHODE>
<METHODE>Vector logic and composed fit: ordering moral
viewpoints as vectors with direction, strength, reach,
bridging principles and defeaters – the aim is fit, not addition.</METHODE>
<METHODE>Determinate positioning with conditions for revision: formulating
a responsible position together with the supporting description, the decisive
vectors, the subordinate viewpoints, alternatives and
conditions of corrigibility.</METHODE>
<METHODE>Projection control and self-application: examining one's own
methodological lens – what does it make visible, what does it conceal, where does
methodological fundamentalism threaten?</METHODE>
</METHODEN>
<KERNFRAGEN>
<KERNFRAGE>Within which logical space of possible theoretical alternatives is the
text's position located?</KERNFRAGE>
<KERNFRAGE>Which different regions of fact, areas of experience or
discourse are brought together synoptically?</KERNFRAGE>
<KERNFRAGE>Which terrain does the text open up – which constellation of
entities, roles, relations, values