In fact, since Greece's academism tradition, each circle's essentially researching stance and course must have been consistently switched and with each adjoining circle, mutually converting each own them at each very arbitrary occasion.

Aristotle's first schemed idea must have had own classified category.

Taxonomy is generally regarded as study of classifying and categorizing already arbitrarily systematologically collected materials.

Meanwhile, Systematology is regarded as study of systematizing system's significance.

Nevertheless, both stadies can never be totalled nor made in harmony nor fusion.

Simply, both mutually discrimated circles' own contradictory appearance is embodied.

On the other hand, probably, as first only not contradictory combination could have been prepared for us at any occasional timing or our starting timing at addressing to any study, probably rather that case must invite any screwed up confusion in running our researching activities and keepingup with circle's organizing mechanism.

Additionally, at the matter of fact, Greek traditional academism's own category includes either Mereology.

It is regarded as dealing with "predicate logic to formal ontology"(Wikipedia)

These appearance is very associable with our earth's global relationships among any different country and mutually arbitrary reciprocity at each occasionally very convertible.

In these mutually subtlety relevant reciprocity, we must have intuitive conviction that merely genuinely refined classification is doubtfully regarded, otherwise rather either that absolutely convincing truth making criteria must be impossible at composing so exactly.

And among there adjoining and mutually co-existing categorized approach, in fact, certainly our own intuitively immanently prepared plenary subject that if we have no mutually complicated mutually relevant reciprocity, we must invite very dogmatized own error, prior to beginning of our mission.

That is not relativity cognitive attitude and rather more similar to uncertainty abiding cognitive one.

With those reasons, we'd never conclude that we can clearly classfy substance and notion or obviously absolute convincing principle, therefore, previously we have preventive attitude to the articulating the difference between sustantial material and only notional data.

In frank, we'd never have that articulated divisional cognition, because consistently, we are very familiarly adjoining with ambiguity and very mutually unseparable and very fuzzily crossable constantly not perfectly like our daily human judgements.

Substance and form, and element and totally schemed cognition must never be mutually perfectly divisive. Not perfectly divisional nor not perfectly harmonized but simultaneously that appearance must never be in utter confusion or mess-up, far from it, that must be so totally balanced harmonized order at araitrary wholeness.

For the time being, we could submit next arbitrary combinated order.

     SIMPLICITYーPLAINNESSーNECESSITY

           SIMPLANECESS 

And it's   NOT《 COCRETE 》NOR 《ABSTRACT》. But simultaneously it's NOT UNCERTAINTY.

That's what could be missed to catch if we try to grip, but if we try to be roughly grasp and get it satisfied to us, occasionally so perfectly regarded appearance.

And next very important principle truth.

That is WHAT OUR "CATEGORIZATION IN ABSOLUTE FORM must be SUSTAINED by NOT PERFECTLY DIVISIONAL MUTUAL SEGREGATION in CATEGORY, but AMBIGUOUSLY CROSSABLE and MUTUALLY AMBIVALENTLY OCCASIONARILY DISTANCED or MUTUALLY REMOTELY SET.

(Irregularly to be continued)

July. 18th.  2022

Appendix; This time approach must be nearer to uncertainty than relativity. But simultaneously, predicate logic's propositional logic abiding contacting.