RE: virus: pop quiz #14

Brett Robertson (BrettMan35@webtv.net)
Thu, 20 May 1999 22:58:57 -0500 (EST)

--WebTV-Mail-2143971141-935
Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

Joe: Abstraction IS a description

Me: I said as much.

Joe: (which must be symbolically represented to be expressed at all),

Me: I disagree that an abstraction MUST be represented. A group of apples and oranges may be abstracted to an idea, "fruit" which does not have to be represented to be expressed.

Joe: but a type description rather than a token description.

Me: Yes, type vs. token is what I am implying... the abstraction "chair" (as "a thing to sit upon") may be the justification for declaring a *couch* to be a chair; whereas, the "token" loveseat is a phenomena of the idea of chairness when utilized as such.

Joe: ...Images, being particular, are as a rule descriptive rather than prescriptive.

Me: I am describing two types of normative representations ("images")... the image which is limited through censure is prescriptive (for example, art which is considered NOT pornographic by community standards may be held-up as an image of what is "decent"): The one which "emotes" is descriptive (perhaps, the way I portray myself in public, my "image").

Joe: ...To abstract does NOT prescribe, or say how a certain class of things SHOULD BE; rather it describes how a certain class of things TYPICALLY IS.

Me: An image, or *norm*, which is established through agreement and compromise IS prescriptive-- it is an image of how things "should" be by its very nature.* This is contrasted from an ideal representation which portrays a specific "image"... agreement and compromise to the fact of this matter notwithstanding.

*a "typical" example is averaged to a common level through assumed, or actual, compromise and agreement to this fact.

Joe: Since your purported premise definitions are already so horribly flawed, there is no reason for me to proceed to debunk the balance of your word salad.

Me: The intent to "debunk" already encapsulates your argument and disqualifies it for serious consideration. Similarly, the opinion that my suggestions are "horribly" flawed seems to be more proof of your intent (being hysterical and, surely, overstated in view of our common ground).

Brett Lane Robertson
Indiana, USA
http://www.window.to/mindrec
MindRecreation Metaphysical Assn.
BIO: http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay ...........
Put your item up for auction! Bid on hot opportunities! Click HERE to view great deals!:
http://www.utrade.com/index.htm?MID=59876

--WebTV-Mail-2143971141-935
Content-Disposition: Inline
Content-Type: Message/RFC822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

Received: from mailsorter-102-1.iap.bryant.webtv.net (209.240.198.98) by
	postoffice-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net; Thu, 20 May 1999 19:43:43
	-0700 (PDT)

Return-Path: <owner-virus@lucifer.com>
Received: from maxwell.kumo.com (maxwell.kumo.com [198.161.199.205]) by
	mailsorter-102-1.iap.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.8/ms.graham.14Aug97)
	with ESMTP id TAA22220; Thu, 20 May 1999 19:43:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by maxwell.kumo.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id
	UAA18195 for virus-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 20:21:33 -0600
Message-Id: <199905210221.WAA25476@mail1.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: virus@lucifer.com
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 21:22:54 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: RE: virus: pop quiz #14
In-reply-to: <588-3744BD30-266@postoffice-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net> References: "Richard Brodie" <richard@brodietech.com>'s message of Fri, 21 May 1999 01:28:45 +0200 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: owner-virus@lucifer.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
From:           	BrettMan35@webtv.net (Brett Robertson)
Date sent:      	Thu, 20 May 1999 20:56:00 -0500 (EST)
To:             	virus@lucifer.com
Subject:        	RE: virus: pop quiz #14
Send reply to:  	virus@lucifer.com

> Prescriptive is to Descriptive as Normative is to....
>
> iconographic
>
> The differences between what is abstract, ideal, essential, symbolic,
> archetypal, and/ or what relates to an image or idol-- as well as what
> is iconographic-- is subtle.
>
> What you MIGHT be saying is:
>
> How is the essential nature of a thing restated, within a systems
> representation that might include it, such that the abstraction of it
> (what is prescriptive) describes a SIMILAR quality to the symbolization
> of it (what is descriptive). These two qualities (the abstraction and
> the symbolic representation) MAY be referred to as the normative image
> and the phenomenal image (meaning "the one which names" it and "the one
> which expresses it"); though, this characterization doesn't address a
> different essential nature in the two cases.
>
Abstraction IS a description (which must be symbolically represented to be expressed at all), but a type description rather than a token description. It describes the characteristics of a typical chair, rather than describing a particular chair. Images, being particular, are as a rule descriptive rather than prescriptive. An ideal is another matter entirely (these are two different species of PROTOTYPE); the difference (following George Lakoff) can be seen when we think about the difference between the ideal husband or wife and the typical one. To abstract does NOT prescribe, or say how a certain class of things SHOULD BE; rather it describes how a certain class of things TYPICALLY IS. Since your purported premise definitions are already so horribly flawed, there is no reason for me to proceed to debunk the balance of your word salad.

>

> It may be shown that what is expressed is DIFFERENT from what is named
> (and thus that each refers to one of two potentially distinct essential
> natures-- for example, the "justification" which is named and the
> "truth" which is expressed). To indicate this, one must suggest that
> what is named refers to a static system (which is averaged to a point
> and so becomes crystallized by the naming of it, and /or which refers,
> then, to the [self] justification for it); and that the image which is
> expressed refers to a viable system (such that by simply restating the
> essential nature of the system one can not indicate the potential
> contained within it).
>
> In such cases: The "icon" (which is descriptive) is distinct from the
> "idol" (which is prescriptive): The idol, then, refers to what is
> normative. This is in contrast to the icon-- though the icon ALSO
> refers to what is normative. What is iconographic, however, further
> suggests that the essential nature of the normative abstraction MAY
> refer merely to what is justified... while the normative symbol-- the
> icon suggests-- essentially refers to what is true.
>
> Brett Lane Robertson
> Indiana, USA
> http://www.window.to/mindrec
> MindRecreation Metaphysical Assn.
> BIO: http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay
> ...........
> Put your item up for auction! Bid on hot opportunities! Click HERE to
> view great deals!:
> http://www.utrade.com/index.htm?MID=59876
>
>

--WebTV-Mail-2143971141-935--