Concept Theory and Conceit Theory Ontology and Logology Between Conceptuality and Non-Conceptuality in Knowledge Organization

Knowledge Organization (KO) has a historically established construction based on a concept theory according to the Aristotelian model. It is from the Organon that the primary theoretical basis of documentary-language thinking is established. One can identify the construction of conceptual thinking in classical approaches such as Ranganathan's classification theory. More directly, Dahlberg's theory of concept proves the demarcating point of view of the Aristotelian foundation in KO. However, even in such approaches as Ranganathan's, one can also identify another theoretical tradition in classification theory concerned with constructing a nonconceptual approach. It is from Emanuele Tesauro that we can conceive a non-conceptual theory, establishing a given conceit theory. This research aims to point out the dichotomies and correlations between a concept theory and a non-conceptual one in KO. The research method is theoretical, structured from the perspective of a historical epistemology with a pragmatic background. At first, the historical-theoretical place of concept theory in the KO is determined. Later, the foundation of a non-conceptual theory (or conceit theory) is identified. Furthermore, the relationship between theories in historical and contemporary development in the classification theory is discussed. From the Aristotelian categories, one can understand a method for the relationship between signifier, meaning, and referent, and establish the associations of meaning between terms. The non-conceptuality theory can be historically identified in Emanuele Tesauro. From his Categorical Index, published in the Cannocchiale aristotelico, the condition of concept (and no-concept) is the apex of a variety of chain of rhetorical being, and it points to the creation and progressive unfolding of language figures (conceit elements). According to the French philosopher, Barbara Cassin, the theory of non-conceptuality lays the foundation or logology perspective for a semiotic-semiological-pragmatic focus and encounters the later Wittgenstein, Michel Foucault, and symbolic and poststructuralist approaches. Coincidentally, sources such as Bernd Frohmann, Søren Brier, and Hope Olson will devote themselves to the study of these philosophers to re-discuss the KO. The results lead us to the discussion of different ontological distinctions of language in the tradition of research in KO, as well as the possibilities of critical-social construction of a non-conceptual perspective. The conclusions point to the common origin of the Aristotelian nature of conceptual thinking and non-conceptual thinking. 1.0 Introduction Knowledge Organization (KO) has a historically established construction based on a concept theory according to the Aristotelian model (Aristotle 2010). It is from the Organon that the primary theoretical basis of documentary-language thinking is established as well as from reasoning about the role of language in knowledge, already present in Plato's Cratylus (Plato 1963). One can identify the construction of the conceptual thinking in classical approaches such as Ranganathan's classification theory (Saldanha 2014), despite the possibility of pragmatic openness launched by the Indian mathematician. More directly, Dahlberg's theory of concept establishes the demarcating point of view of the Aristotelian foundation in KO (Dahlberg 1993; 2006). However, even in such approaches as Ranganathan's (Ranganathan 1967), one can also identify another theoretical tradition in classification theory concerned with constructing a nonconceptual approach. It is from Emanuele Tesauro that we can conceive a nonconceptual theory, establishing a given conceit theory. © Ergon ein Verlag in der Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft