Mark:
As I am using these terms, naming particulars by attribution
would be identical to universals
or structurization. For instance, gender is a result of
attributing characteristics to people
defined (rightly or wrongly) as being one sex or the other. (I
say rightly or wrongly since
there is
Sandra,
At 02:23 AM 11/4/2004, you wrote:
Okay! It is fair to say that the process isn't without error... (haven't read
Hacking ... obviously)
I am not sure how error would fit in. As Aleister Crowley said, Do as thou wilt is
the whole of the law. Through expressing our wills, we
Mark, you said:
I am not sure how error would fit in. As Aleister Crowley said, Do as
thou wilt is the whole of the law. Through expressing our wills, we
collectively (in interaction with others) structurize our lifeworlds.
My intention is not to discuss the merits of his statement or the
Yes, I think that God's directive to name created things was, in effect,
an authorization to structurize creation.
I wonder then, as the Baha'i Era opened with a Book known as Qayyum-i-Asma
and that Asma is one of the Names of God, then that man has the implied
authority to name anew creation
Hi, Richard,
At 06:53 PM 11/4/2004, you wrote:
I wonder then, as the Baha'i Era opened with a Book known as Qayyum-i-Asma and that
Asma is one of the Names of God, then that man has the implied authority to name
anew creation which would include the inner world of himself, hence the explosion
Okay. Well, again, if I were talking about a particular human reality, I
would call it a particular. If I were talking about the reality of man (a
structurization, or dynamic power of naming, for humans collectively), I
would call it a universal.
Good. Thank you. I needed that specific
as percieved by most humans is
relative ... Well, you know...)
Your modified abstract states: The problems of realism,
nominalism, particularism, and conceptualism are transcended
by defining universals as **names** for structurizations, and
structurizations within structurizations, considered
, not
objective reality, which refers to particulars.
Your modified abstract states: The problems of realism, nominalism, particularism,
and conceptualism are transcended by defining universals as **names** for
structurizations,
In the most recent version of it, I have removed that reference
Yes, any system is, in my view, constructed through naming.
In this case, naming refers to
the *attribution* of characteristics.
Hi Mark,
Could you give an example of naming by attribution in each -
Particulars; Universals; and Structurizations...
And, include: who/what is
Hi, Sandra,
At 10:06 PM 11/3/2004, you wrote:
Could you give an example of naming by attribution in each - Particulars;
Universals; and Structurizations...
As I am using these terms, naming particulars by attribution would be identical to
universals or structurization. For instance, gender
Hi, Richard,
At 02:32 PM 11/1/2004, you wrote:
..Alright then: so far so good. If the Manifestation of God is taken as a
structuriization there may be some discussion about man.
IMO, each Prophet would be a particular. The concept, Manifestations of God, is a
universal or structurization.
Hi, Richard,
IMO, each Prophet would be a particular. The concept, Manifestations of
God, is a universal or structurization.
I agree.
For if it is determined that his reality is a structuralizaton of God,
we have one answer.
I wouldn't call the Reality, in the sense of the Soul, of any one
Hi, Richard,
At 12:37 PM 11/2/2004, you wrote:
I was speaking of the reality of man rather than the Reality of the Manifestation.
Okay. Well, again, if I were talking about a particular human reality, I would call it
a particular. If I were talking about the reality of man (a structurization,
Mark you wrote,
IMO, the different evolutions are dynamic structurizations.
That is excellent. Under strcturizations would fall all volitionally
dependent set of rules pertaining to relationships between particulars. As
we, as humans, cannot identify any phenomenon unless it has a relationship
Hi, Richard,
At 11:37 AM 11/1/2004, you wrote:
That is excellent.
Thanks.
Under strcturizations would fall all volitionally dependent set of rules pertaining
to relationships between particulars.
Yes. My views here resemble those of Michel Foucault and Ian Hacking. A
structurization is a
Hi Mark
You wrote: What I am trying to
do is to distinguish between particulars, universals (or categories), and
structurizations:
This came across clearly in the modified abstract. First
time around I was completely lost...
The 1st paragraph of the modified was for me a conglomeration
Hi, Sandra,
At 03:21 AM 10/31/2004, you wrote:
Then, to my surprise, I completely understood the remaining 4 paragraphs...
especially from a Baha'i perspective...
What is your take on it?
In the last paragraph you mention individualized spirits in the vegetable kingdom.
I'm particularly
Hi, Richard,
At 07:55 PM 10/31/2004, you wrote:
How are the strong and weak magnetic forces, gravity and light classified in your
system?
Well, as far as I have a system grin, I assume that magnetic forces and gravity are
mineral structurizations. Off the top of my head, I would say that
Hi (again) Mark,
You wrote to Richard: IMO, the different evolutions are
dynamic structurizations.
I agree with this also. My personal feeling is that
Creation in all it's forms was structuralized (your
terminology) ...normally, I would say: set in motion... by
the One Creator we know as
As a result of some of the feedback I have received, I have revised the abstract for
my paper. Although I do not agree with most of what people wrote me, it was useful to
me in making my points more clearly.
I am being careful to make distinctions between the magisteria of science and
20 matches
Mail list logo
