From: BrettMan35@webtv.net (Brett Robertson) Date sent: Thu, 20 May 1999 22:58:57 -0500 (EST) To: virus@lucifer.com Subject: RE: virus: pop quiz #14 Send reply to: virus@lucifer.com
> 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.
>
A word is a representation; your word "fruit" represents apples,
oranges, grapes and pears, among others. Anyone could look at a
number of things, say a rock, a cloud, and a produce section, and
say immediately to which of these the term applies. There are
certain basic level concepts which are divided or combined to make
others, so that we have a single epistemic concept of "chair" but
not of "furniture, but "furniture", as a term, nevertheless delineates
a category which includes some things and excludes others, and
as such, represents what it includes. It is not necessary for a
particular picture to arise in the brain for representation occur;
apples can be red, yellow or green. You cannot equate "represent"
with "picture" (besides which, how would "Da-Da-Da-Dum!!!!" be
representative of Beethoven?).
>
> 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.
>
But that's not what you said; you said that such things PREscribed
rather than DEscribed; I'm sure you would like to forget your
mistakes in the back-and-forth of email threading, but I WON'T LET
YOU.
>
> 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").
>
Censure is an added element not obtaining in your original
definition, and is also not the meaning of "image " under discussion
(that was one of the semiotic trilogy image, index, icon, where the
image is a picture, the index is a definition, and the icon is a
symbol). You are equivocating with the nonpictoral class best
represented by the term "public image" as what people think of a
politician's ethics, but once again, I WILL PIN YOU TO THE WALL
YOU BUILT WITH YOUR OWN DEFINIYIONS AND NOT ALLOW
YOU TO SURREPTITIOUSLY SWITCH REFERENTS!
>
> 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.*
>
Wrongo. We can look at a polluted lake and say it SHOULD be
clean, but that's not how it IS; likewise, we can say that the Serbs
SHOULD BE accepting of the Kosovar Abut they are not. To
describe their bigoted position is NOT to endorse it as a desired
norm.
>
> This is contrasted from an ideal representation which
> portrays a specific "image"... agreement and compromise to the fact of
> this matter notwithstanding.
>
Idealities, unlike typicalities, ARE prescriptive; they establish
standards within a class to which candidate members must
"measure up" to be included (such as "the ideal mate").
>
> *a "typical" example is averaged to a common level through assumed, or
> actual, compromise and agreement to this fact.
>
It does not have to be agreed upon. A typical wave for a resident of
Hawaii is much larger than a typical wave for someone living on the
Gulf of Mexico. What is typical is what is average within the
particular apprehender's individual experiential history, and differs
from person to person.
>
> 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.
>
It would've been nice for Uri Geller if he could've told James Randi
that, but no such luck, and not here, either.
>
> 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).
>
I think "horribly" is an understating adjective, considering your
blatantly concatenating perfusion of compound errors. Did
everybody finally get tired of your blather on "mindwreck" and
unsubscribe, leaving you the necessity of returning here in order to
have an audience upon which to inflict your demented cognitive
jumble? I notice that you didn't reproduce what you originally said;
instead stealing my objections (as well as the language in which
they were expressed) and trying (badly) to remake them into your
points so you could salvage some shred of intellectual credibility
by claiming agreement with me. It won't work. You can paint your
bullshit red, but that won't make it steak.
>
> 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
>
>