Activity modeling and mythological consciousness

This article will be simple and short. However, in my opinion, it will be very important for analysts who are engaged in the description of activities. At the same time, it does not matter what - whether it is the processes occurring in a nuclear reactor, or the processes occurring at an enterprise - they are all modeled uniformly. I will try again to talk about it, but this time - without complicated theoretical departures.







So, there is some activity. In the mythological consciousness of the primitive man, behind each action is a conscious being. For example, if it flows, it makes this living being - a river; if it shines, then the living creature makes it the Sun. Therefore, in the mythological consciousness, every action has an actor who is conscious of itself, which it performs. And we can say that the purpose (function) of this actor is to do this action. I specifically say that all this happens only within the framework of the mythological consciousness. For example, a car travels on the road only within the framework of a mythological consciousness, because in reality the car does not have the will and cannot go somewhere. Our language is set to reflect the mythological consciousness, so it is so difficult for us to think otherwise. For example, one could say that a car is a participant in an activity and a road; as a result of this activity, the car constantly moves along the road, but we, animating the car, say that it is the car that does it. Thus, the purpose of the machine within the framework of the mythological consciousness is to drive, or as part of mythological thinking, the function of the machine is to drive. (although we might as well animate the wheel pair and say that driving is a function of the wheel pair, not the car). I note that the assignment as a function does not have a beginning or end within the context of the existing context.



Within the framework of the same mythological consciousness, if we do not know the actor, but we see that something is happening, then we are talking about an action that happens by itself, and we call it a process. For example, if we see a flame, then we say that there is a burning process. At the same time, if we have found out that gas is flaring, we can, having animated a gas in the framework of mythological consciousness, say that the function of the associated gas is to burn. We can also find out that the burning takes place with the help of a special torch, and having animated the torch, we say that the function of the torch is to burn the associated gas. Everything is exactly the same as with a car and a pair of wheels - what they animated, it does: associated gas, or a torch. I want to emphasize that a process is a function without an actor, and, like a function, it does not have a beginning and an end within the framework of the existing context.

')

Sometimes we need to say something about activity that had a beginning and an end. In the mythological consciousness, this action also makes an animated actor, for example, a volcano threw lava. At the same time, the description of activity in the form of an operation is not a description of activity in the form of a function. For example, in the mythological consciousness, the function of the sun is to give heat. But suppose that at some point the sun explodes. Within the framework of the mythological consciousness, this occurrence is not a function of the Sun, it is an operation performed by the Sun. The description of the activity in the form of an operation is also not a description of the activity in the form of a process.



Sometimes we talk about a sequence of actions - one is done first, then the second, then the third, and so on. Such a description of the activity - there is a script. At the same time, the description of activity as a script is not a description of activity as a function, or as a process.



Sometimes we talk about a typical sequence of actions. For example, we say that in case of fire, we must act in a certain way. Then we are talking about the scenario model, or the regulations. The regulation is a model of activity models. At the same time, regulations are often confused with the process, trying to name the activity model and the activity model model in one word. This is a logical error.



In the OOP mythological consciousness has penetrated in the form of methods that must be performed by certain objects of certain classes. In the article, World is a collection of facts, and not things are well written about it. It is difficult for us to think outside the framework of the mythological consciousness and therefore it seems natural that an object of the “machine” class possesses the “go” method. But in essence, this way of thinking is an attempt to animate the inanimate.



Thanks for attention. I, as promised, was brief.