Usually, a speech is build up of sentences, which are, according to Webster dictionary, "grammatically self-contained units that express an assertion, a question, a command, a wish, or an exclamation". What happens if one leaves all questions, commands, wishes and exclamations out of speech, and then uses only assertions, which are not only grammatically, but also semantically self-contained? Instead of a speech, one gets a meaningless series of unrelated statements, coming from nowhere, leading nowhere, and appearing in an arbitrary order. Like the article of Takahara Toshio, "Application Area of Thinking Tool or Problem Solving Tool" , for example.
The torture starts with the very first statement: Different kinds of problems require different thinking tools and different problem solving tools, operating on the object of the process. What are these kinds of problems? How many different thinking tools are there? (I heard of one - a human brain.) Are thinking tools and problem solving tools both required? What is the object of the process and how the tools operate on it? If a reader holds a breath expecting that explanations will come, the reader is in a very real danger of suffocation, since not only explanations never come, but more of this stuff follows.
To discuss non-technical problem solving it is necessary to consider not only a "system object", which is usually a physical entity, but also a "process object", which is a process as object. A process is not a physical entity? Is it a spiritual entity? A "process as object" as oppose to what? A "process as phantom"?
A creature came into the world as a step of natural history. Is this process an object or rather Mr. Takahara's hallucination?
Thus until now we have had the vast accumulated indirect media called "culture" that is born by the technical means or common concept in the area of recognition and operation. @#$^&?
To solve problems is to design something. These two are equal... No, they are not. By designing this article Mr. Takahara didn't solve any problem. Moreover, sometimes to solve a problem is to eliminate something, Mr. Takahara's article, for example.
On the other hand recognition whether it is simple or consists of "science" and "art" on the "culture" basis ("science system" and "art system") is the other half of human life that thinking tool or problem solving tool does not concern essentially except some exception. Isn't it obvious that some essential exceptions are eventually excepted?
And now, to a conclusion:
I made clear the position of "object" especially "process object" in design or problem solving and gave the grounds to the application area to which thinking tool or problem solving tool can apply. Really? This, I would call a delusion.
Lastly I express my heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Roni Horowitz and Dr. Ellen Domb for their kind comments. These comments I would really like to see!
R E F E R E N C E S: