--WebTV-Mail-1456306623-1709 Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Joe: A word is a representation; your word "fruit" represents apples, oranges, grapes and pears, among others...
Me: The *word* "fruit" IS a descriptive term. As I said, the *symbol* is descriptive while the abstraction is PREscriptive. That is, "apples" when generalized to a system of apples, pears, oranges, etc must be *prescribed* by the abstraction (an apple, with regard to the SYSTEM, "fruit", may be described only in the negative as NOT orange, NOT grape, etc. )... whereas, the symbolic term *fruit* (more properly, fruity) is described by the apple-- assuming the apple is presented as a token, or icon, and the term "fruity" is evoked through apple's prime example
ps... an "average" (or typical) Hawaiian wave is PREscribed by a range of waves greater than and less than average (and this is true regardless of the context to which the term "average" is constrained)
Brett Lane Robertson
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!:
--WebTV-Mail-1456306623-1709 Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Type: Message/RFC822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Received: from mailsorter-102-1.iap.bryant.webtv.net (220.127.116.11) by postoffice-131.iap.bryant.webtv.net; Thu, 20 May 1999 22:01:38 -0700 (PDT)
mailsorter-102-1.iap.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.8/ms.graham.14Aug97) with ESMTP id WAA28646; Thu, 20 May 1999 22:01:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by maxwell.kumo.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id WAA23678 for virus-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 22:48:53 -0600Message-Id: <199905210448.AAA10897@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
From: BrettMan35@webtv.net (Brett Robertson) Date sent: Thu, 20 May 1999 22:58:57 -0500 (EST) To: email@example.com Subject: RE: virus: pop quiz #14 Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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
> 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
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
> 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!: