12. If we maintain that conop is transcended and included in formop in a qualitative sense, then conop is thereby transcended and excluded in a quantitative manner.
Thus whereas conop understanding relies heavily on concrete perceptions (quantitative), by contrast formop is much more general and conceptual (qualitative).
So the nature of conop changes with the emergence of formop (becoming less dependent on rigid concrete perception).
This enables new creative two-way linkages as between conop and formop.
So from one perspective, the conceptual understanding of formop is seen as a "higher" stage transcending conop and used as the means to structure and integrate "lower" conop perceptions (the deductive approach).
However, now equally, the transformed conop understanding (through exclusion of rigid concrete interpretation) is seen as a - relatively - "lower" stage through which the - relatively - "higher" formop is made immanent.
In other words from this perspective concrete data are creatively used to suggest an organising conceptual pattern.
Science very much depends on both approaches. Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a very good example of the first, where a conceptual "higher" formop structure was used to explain "lower" conop empirical data (top-down).
Curiously, Ken Wilber's account of how derived his four quadrants is a good example of the second. Here a wealth of - relatively - "lower" holarchical empirical data (conop) was used to suggest the "higher" organising conceptual pattern (formop) of the four quadrants (bottom-up).
So in the first case conop is transcended in formop; in the second formop is made immanent in conop.