Partial order scalogram analysis with base coordinates (POSAC): Its application to crime patterns in all the states in the United States

In this paper, a new nonmetric method called POSAC is presented and illustrated through an analysis of the crime patterns of all the states in the United States. POSAC is a graphical technique for the display of multivariate data in a two-dimensional space. It maps the rows (e.g., states) of a matrix in a way that maximizes the preservation of theirpartial order, with similar states located in close proximity on the map. POSAC is based on the partial order among observations rather than their actual magnitude. POSAC seems to bear the same relationship to the principal-component analysis (PCA) as that borne by the median to the arithmetic mean. As a matter of fact, POSAC is a form of ordinal factor analysis. Its advantage over PCA is its robustness to the data. The technique enables observations and variables to be studied simultaneously. Seven index crime categories are analyzed. In order to demonstrate the utility of POSAC in detecting changes in crime patterns over time, we included in our analysis three selected years: 1944, 1965, and 1987. The results for the year 1987 are compared to those obtained by PCA.     

Smallest-space analysis vs. the method of principal components: Another look at Ahamad's analysis of crimes

This paper presents a reanalysis of the Ahamad case study of 18 types of offenses. The suggested method is a nonmetric multidimensional scaling type called smallest-space analysis (SSA-I) which uncovers findings that were not expressed explicitly by the principal-components method used by Ahamad.     

<Emphasis Type="Italic">Ayam aham asmīti</Emphasis>: Self-consciousness and Identity in the Eighth Chapter of the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Chāndogya Upanişad</Emphasis> vs. Śankara’s <Emphasis Type="Italic">Bhāşya</Emphasis>

The article offers a close reading of the famous upanişadic story of Indra, Virocana and Prajāpati from the eighth chapter of the Chāndogya-Upanişad versus Śankara’s bhāşya, with special reference to the notions of suşupti and turīya. That Śankara is not always loyal to the Upanişadic texts is a well-known fact. That the Upanişads are (too) often read through Śan-kara’s Advaitic eyes is also known. The following lines will not merely illustrate the gap between text and commentary but will also reveal an unexpected Upanişadic depiction of ‘dreamless sleep’ and ‘transcendental consciousness’. Suşupti is described here as ‘one step too far’, as a ‘break’ or discontinuity in one’s consciousness; whereas turīya is depicted positively, and surprisingly even in wordly terms. Unlike the third state of consciousness in which there is no ‘world’ nor ‘me’, and which is described through Indra’s character as ‘total destruction’ (vināśa); in turīya, the world ‘comes back’, or rather the ‘renouncer’ returns to the world. Sankara’s position, as far as the story under discussion is concerned, is radically different. For him, the Upanişadic story illustrates the continuity of consciousness in all its states. For him, the identification with merely one of the consciousness-states is an error (adhyāsa) which causes suffering. Consciousness prevails even in suşupti, and turīya has nothing to do with ‘coming back to the world’, since there is nowhere to come back from or to. Turīya, as seen by the Advaitin, consists of all the other states of consciousness together, or as K. C. Bhattacharyya puts it, ‘It is not only a stage among stages; it is the truth of the other stages’. The article is dedicated to Prof. Daya Krishna (1924-2007).