|
|
|
Objects
|
|
The theory of objects is
implicitly established. It remains to make the theory explicit, to re-verify
and elaborate it
|
|
Concept and Object
|
|
Necessary and Normal
Objects
|
|
The development so far has
identified necessary and Normal or strictly Intuitive Objects
|
|
Form is an object. Entities
are Objects and may be thought of as ‘concrete’
|
|
Since every concept has
reference, process and relationship are Objects
|
|
Being, Universe, mode of
Difference (space, time, other,) Domain, the Void are necessary Objects
|
|
Particular and Abstract
Objects
|
|
Entities are the prototype
for Objects. In classical thought a property such as redness was contrasted
from a red Object. While the red Object is particular, redness is common to
all red Objects and therefore a Universal. A Universal is, at least intuitively,
rather abstract. This is a source of the particular / abstract distinction.
Entities are the prototype for particular Objects and thus, Universe, Domain,
complement, Void are necessary particular Objects
|
|
Do mathematical, logical,
and ethical ideas define Objects? Since number, for example, is not
apparently in the actual world, such objects are thought to be abstract—if
they are Objects at all. The abstractness lies in their conceptual and
apparently intangible insensible qualities; in that they do not appear to lie
in space, in that they appear to be timeless
|
|
•Since every consistent concept must have reference, the distinction
between particular or concrete and abstract objects breaks down, i.e., while
there may be distinctions such as partial and full (Objects,)
and genera and instance, there is no categorial distinction of
particular and abstract
|
|
The reference of number, for
example, may be taken to be an aspect of what is common to classes of
entities
|
|
Character of particular
and abstract Objects. What is called ‘particular’ is suited to empirical
study; what is called ‘abstract’ is suited to symbolic study
|
|
Number and Euclidean
Geometry, for example, begin as study of particular objects, i.e. early in
their history or intuitive pre-history, but it is then found that they are
most powerfully amenable to study in symbolic terms—they ‘become’ abstract;
the non-absoluteness of the distinction is underlined by the bringing back of
mathematics into the semi-empirical domain by the computer assisted proof of
a number of fundamental theorems. Logic is an Object; that is, Logic
is defined by the principle of reference
|
|
These reflections make
analysis easier by clarifying the conceptual side of various abstract
mathematical and logical objects; however empirical problems remain
regarding, for example, actual infinities and the meanings of actual
infinities… and other abstract concepts
|
|
This shows that abstract
objects do not exist outside space (or time) but, rather, that their being in
or outside extension is, according to the case, partly or totally irrelevant
to their being. Similarly, the immanence of reference shows that abstract objects
are not characteristically intangible. It is only the incomplete prior
understanding of abstract objects that renders them apparently intangible and
apparently not resident in space (or time)
|
|
Sources of abstract
character. Mathematical Objects are those whose form is simple enough to
be capable of symbolic study and sufficiently universal to be usefully
applicable. It is sometimes thought that mathematical proficiency is a
fortuitous result of other proficiencies that are adaptive. It is not clear
that this is altogether true, first, because, as the principle of reference
reveals, mathematical and physical intuition are not disjoint and, second,
especially though hypothetically in that even though mathematical ability is
not universal it may have been selected for in cultural adaptation.
Universals have an abstract character in that they are generalizations of
aspects of particulars; in fact, universals now appear to be a cross of
particular and abstract aspects. Values are abstract in that they are not
present actual Objects but preferred potential Objects whose preference is
determined by some combination of adaptation, adapted-ness, and
intuition-symbolic process
|
|
A system of Objects
|
|
Being, the Universe,
Difference, the modes of difference, Domain, Complement, Entity-Process, the
Void… are particular objects. Relation, property, form, mathematical objects,
value, morals, ethics, truth… may be regarded as abstract; however, even in
abstractness the abstract have an aspect of the particular, e.g., the
particular relation. An Entity as entity—as distinct from entity-process—is
abstract. The Jesus Christ of this earth is particular; but this particular
defines a recurrent particular Object that is also an abstract Object that
may also be called ‘Jesus Christ’
|
|
Every particular Object
defines a variety of abstract Objects. The set of all identical Objects
recurrent over space at a particular time is abstract; this abstract Object
may have temporal features. The set of identical Objects recurrent over all
extension and duration is another abstract Object. This Object may be thought
of as atemporal or, perhaps more precisely, as one that is not atemporal but
one whose temporal features are not of any relevance to its nature
|
|
Although a simple emotion
may be seen as referring to the body, its Object may be regarded as an action
or the outcome of action. An emotion may be experienced as vague; however, if
the outcome is a simple polar continuum such as move closer or further away,
then the emotional Object may be regarded as capable of precision. Whether
this line of development is interesting is left for development. More
interesting and even profound is interaction between cognition and low level
emotional-feeling in which cognition without feeling is empty even if present
and emotion is a function also of cognition is developed in the detailed
essays—Home
|
|
The fundamental concept
of the metaphysics
|
|
•The Object emerges as perhaps the fundamental concept…
|
|
The foregoing thoughts show
the immense and profound depth of the fundamental principle
|
|
Logic, Grammar and
Meaning
|
|
The logics and what is
constant in grammar may be seen as the requirements on concepts (including
conceptual systems) in order for them to have the possibility of reference
and no impossible reference (and therefore actual reference)
|
|
Thus Logic and Grammar have
meaning
|
|
The ultimate depth of the
metaphysics shows final meaning of the associated necessary terms. Experience
with the system shows that even in this final case, ‘meaning’ can be
distributed in various ways among the terms
|
|
In the implicit breadth
there is of course flux of meaning without finality—this infinite flexibility
lies within the final meaning described above
|
|
Generally, meaning is
immanent in use-in-context; even lexical meaning lies in system and not words
alone; the system of meaning and therefore particular meanings is dependent
on context and therefore system; while context is roughly ‘situation’ that is
only an approximation—in any given situation, individuals perceive and
interpret at least somewhat differently and therefore may be said to have a
different context in the same situation
|