Hettinger (hettingr@iglou.com)
Tue, 3 Mar 1998 18:58:49 +0100
hi, LS, Donny and Magnus,
Donald T Palmgren wrote:
<snip objectivity exposed as a social pattern of value. "Lab-rat's
objectivity
is dependent upon nothing more than Gloria and everyone elses' ability
to
recognize him as being objective -- and their objectivity is likewise
reciprocally recognized." Wow!>
> Or (and here's the one that gets me going), is the
> abstract-concrete distinction itself abstract or concrete? An abstraction
> is something timeless or universal, like 1+1=2. Something which is
> concrete has a history, it exists in time, it changes... it "lives," one
> might say. (Now this is a logical distinction, not a metaphysical claim.)
I just wanted to note something. I think the commonsense,
man-in-the-street
position would be that "concrete" means dependable, touchable, and while
it may
have a history, the aspect that is being referred to is the unchangeable
aspect. From this point of view, "abstract" is undependable,
subjective,
whatever-you-think, ephemeral.
I don't mean to interrupt your conversation, but it really struck me
that to
you, operating in the intellectual/social mode, abstract is changeless
and
concrete changeable, while to someone operating in the social/biological
mode
the opposite seems more true.
Maggie
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:55 CEST