But first, what is a path?

The need to define terms, especially at the outset, is keen throughout science; but the peculiarities of ideonomy are such that what elsewhere would be a mere need here becomes an absolute necessity.

Let this not give rise to a misimpression: within ideonomy the same problems and limitations that beset the definition of terms and concepts in other fields are no less stubbornly present, and the grail of definitions that are perfect and absolute will always remain elusive (although revolutionary advances in this direction are indeed possible and will certainly occur).

Also, because ideonomy is in its infancy many of its terms and concepts should only be defined tentatively, ambiguously, polysemously, open-endedly, mutably, multiply, even contradictorily; and they should be redefined repeatedly. For definitions of divisions this is especially appropriate.

So path, in the sense of the present division, might variously, imperfectly, but hopefully suggestively be defined as:

l [Structured, ordered, continuous, simple, unique, self-identical, consequential, useful, exclusive, &VC] connection between. two [points, loci, regions, poles, things, boundaries, limits, events, actors, attractors, nodes, configurations, 2 states, levels, holes, subsets, neighborhoods, values, &vc];

2 The continuous series of [positions or configurations] assumed in any [motion or process of change] by any [Moving or varying system;

3 [Way, course, track, or channel] traversed, traversable, traceable, retraceable, or usable] by something.

The most elaborate definition of path I can offer at the moment is that produced by concatenating as many forms of oppositeness as I can think of that might characterize its range of possibilities in a multidimensional space, and by letting it be understood that-whatever a path is- it is some sort of structure, entity, or set of possibilities in this stupendous abstract space (for which I apologize to readers):

4 {[Retraceable <-> unretraceable] [persistent <-> instantaneous] [Actual <-> postulated] [Directed <-> undirected] [Unidirectional <-> bi-directional] [Commutative <-> noncommutative] [Positively defined <-> negatively defined] [Spatial <-> temporal] [Associative <-> nonassociative] [Distributive <-> nondistributive] [Transitive <-> intransitive] [Geometric <-> topological] [Past <-> Present <-> Future] [Two-ended <-> multi-ended] [Symmetric <-> asymmetric] [invariant <-> changing] [Finished <-> developing] [Homogenous <-> heterogeneous] [Uniform <-> nonuniform]} {[Breadthless line <-> area <-> volume <-> field] [locus <-> thing <-> operation <-> function] [Continuous series <-> series of (two or more) (points, loci, or referents]} {CONNECTION, NEXUS,COURSE, ROUTE, TRACK}

Actually I can already see that my elephantine 'definition' is inexcusably incomplete.

Chapter Structure
(Sequence of Subsections)
 
  1. Definition.
  2. Reasons for studying.
  3. Subfields.
  4. Related subdivisions.
  5. Organons.
  6. Divisional terms.
  7. Issues.
  8. Ways to treat.
  9. Examples of paths.
  10. Paths in different fields.
  11. Paths compared.
  12. Causes and influences.
  13. Genera.
  14. Interrelationships of genera.
  15. Ignorance about paths.
  16. Elements.
  17. Properties and dimensions.
  18. Quantitative scalings.
  19. Morphology.
  20. Motions and morphodynamics.
  21. Metastructures of paths.
  22. Path events.
  23. Sequences and stories.
  24. Sets of coalternative paths.
  25. All paths compresent in a specific thing: the human body.
  26. Speculative body paths and functions thereof.
  27. Paths increasingly complex and abstract.
  28. Path importance scaled.
  29. Questions to ask when treating a path.
  30. Ideogenetic formulas.
  31. Epilogue.
The subject of paths might seem of little importance: in general, intrinsically, to ideonomy, or to the application of ideonomy. Who really cares what paths there are? Which paths given things do, could, or must follow? Where paths lead? Where paths start? What paths are made of? What laws paths obey? How paths interact with one another or otherwise behave? Who, for that matter, really cares what is and is not meant by a path? What could one possibly do with a path? Why should one study them, and are not there far more important things to study? And why, for goodness sakes, should paths be incorporated as a subdivision of ideonomy alongside of things of such clear and great moment as ANALOGIES, KNOWLEDGE, and RELATIONS?

A simple reason why I am devoting a chapter to paths is that I think readers will turn out to be surprised by the degree of interest and importance they actually have. Another reason is that I have found empirically in the course of my ideonomic investigations- rather to my own surprise-that certain ideogenetic formulas that refer to paths are unusually successful, productive, and powerful. The subject can therefore attest to the feasibility of ideonomy and to its ultimate creative potential.

There are fields and phenomena in connection with which the importance of paths is already well-known. EXAMPLES ARE: physics (the path of an elementary particle), operations research (CPM or the critical path method, used in detailed project planning and control), astronautics and military science (the trajectories of rockets and shells), hydrology (river meanders), astronomy (precise orbital paths of celestial bodies - e.g. their sensitive ties and projections backward and forward in time), oceanography (paths of currents and eddies), mathematics (asymptotic path for a meromorphic function, the paths of Markov processes or projective geometry), archaeology (trade routes), meteorology (jet streams), musicology (the path of a theme through a symphonic fabric), biology (the cellular or bodily path of a genomic communication, path of migrating caribou, or path of a windborne pollen grain), sociology (a rumor's path), and chemistry (a reaction path).

There are other fields and phenomena possessed of paths, or to which the concept of a path applies, but whereof the relevance of paths remains undiscovered, unimagined, or undeveloped. Here ideonomy may serve as a corrective through the richness of its vision and the novelty of its methods, and through what is perhaps its greatest insight: that phenomena and methods for treating phenomena are essentially universal.