Roman Ingarden’s Objectivity vs. Subjectivity as a problem of Translatability

Ingarden (1962, 1964) postulates that artworks exist in an “Objective purely intentional” way. According to this view, objectivity and subjectivity are opposed forms of existence, parallel to the opposition between realism and idealism. Using arguments of cognitive science, experimental psychology, and semiotics, this lecture proposes that, particularly in the aesthetic phenomena, realism and idealism are not pure oppositions; rather they are aspects of a single process of cognition in different strata. Furthermore, the concept of realism can be conceived as an empirical extreme of idealism, and the concept of idealism can be conceived as a pre-operative extreme of realism. Both kind of systems of knowledge are mutually associated by a synecdoche, performing major tasks of mental order and categorisation. This contribution suggests that the supposed opposition between objectivity and subjectivity, raises, first of all, a problem of translatability, more than a problem of existential categories. Synecdoche seems to be a very basic transaction of the mind, establishing ontologies (in the more Ingardean way of the term). Wegrzecki (1994, 220) defines ontology as “the central domain of philosophy to which other its parts directly or indirectly refer”. Thus, ontology operates within philosophy as the synecdoche does within language, pointing the sense of the general into the particular and/or viceversa. The many affinities and similarities between different sign systems, like those found across the interrelationships of the arts, are embedded into a transversal, synecdochic intersemiosis. An important question, from this view, is whether Ingardean’s pure objectivities lie basically on the impossibility of translation, therefore being absolute self-referential constructions. In such a case, it would be impossible to translate pure intentionality into something else, like acts or products.

Operationalizing Supply Chain vs. Supply Chain Competion

Competition is an immensely important area of study in economic theory, business and strategy. It is known to be vital in meeting consumers’ growing expectations, stimulating increase in the size of the market, pushing innovation, reducing cost and consequently generating better value for end users, among other things. Having said that, it is important to recognize that supply chains, as we know it, has changed the way companies deal with each other both in confrontational or conciliatory terms. As such, with the rise of global markets and outsourcing destinations, increased technological development in transportation, communication and telecommunications has meant that geographical barriers of distance with regards to competition are a thing of the past in an increasingly flat world. Even though the dominant articulation of competition within management and business literature rests mostly within economic competition theory, this thesis draws attention to the implicit shift in the recognition of other forms of competition in today’s business environment, especially those involving supply chain structures. Thus, there is popular agreement within a broad business arena that competition between companies is set to take place along their supply chains. Hence, management’s attention has been focused on how supply chains could become more aggressive making each firm in its supply chain more efficient. However, there is much disagreement on the mechanism through which such competition pitching supply chain against supply chain will take place. The purpose of this thesis therefore, is to develop and conceptualize the notion of supply chain vs. supply chain competition, within the discipline of supply chain management. The thesis proposes that competition between supply chains may be carried forward via the use of competition theories that emphasize interaction and dimensionality, hence, encountering friction from a number of sources in their search for critical resources and services. The thesis demonstrates how supply chain vs. supply chain competition may be carried out theoretically, using generated data for illustration, and practically using logistics centers as a way to provide a link between theory and corresponding practice of this evolving competition mode. The thesis concludes that supply chain vs. supply chain competition, no matter the conceptualization taken, is complex, novel and can be very easily distorted and abused. It therefore calls for the joint development of regulatory measures by practitioners and policymakers alike, to guide this developing mode of competition.