Objects
*Concept and Object
*Necessary and Contingent or Normal Objects
*Particular and Abstract Objects
*A system of Objects
*The fundamental concept of the metaphysics
*Logic, Grammar and Meaning
Objects
The theory of objects is implicitly established. It remains to make the theory explicit, to re-verify and elaborate it
Concept and Object
Necessary and Normal Objects
The development so far has identified necessary and Normal or strictly Intuitive Objects
Form is an object. Entities are Objects and may be thought of as ‘concrete’
Since every concept has reference, process and relationship are Objects
Being, Universe, mode of Difference (space, time, other,) Domain, the Void are necessary Objects
Particular and Abstract Objects
Entities are the prototype for Objects. In classical thought a property such as redness was contrasted from a red Object. While the red Object is particular, redness is common to all red Objects and therefore a Universal. A Universal is, at least intuitively, rather abstract. This is a source of the particular / abstract distinction. Entities are the prototype for particular Objects and thus, Universe, Domain, complement, Void are necessary particular Objects
Do mathematical, logical, and ethical ideas define Objects? Since number, for example, is not apparently in the actual world, such objects are thought to be abstract—if they are Objects at all. The abstractness lies in their conceptual and apparently intangible insensible qualities; in that they do not appear to lie in space, in that they appear to be timeless
•Since every consistent concept must have reference, the distinction between particular or concrete and abstract objects breaks down, i.e., while there may be distinctions such as partial and full (Objects,) and genera and instance, there is no categorial distinction of particular and abstract
The reference of number, for example, may be taken to be an aspect of what is common to classes of entities
Character of particular and abstract Objects. What is called ‘particular’ is suited to empirical study; what is called ‘abstract’ is suited to symbolic study
Number and Euclidean Geometry, for example, begin as study of particular objects, i.e. early in their history or intuitive pre-history, but it is then found that they are most powerfully amenable to study in symbolic terms—they ‘become’ abstract; the non-absoluteness of the distinction is underlined by the bringing back of mathematics into the semi-empirical domain by the computer assisted proof of a number of fundamental theorems. Logic is an Object; that is, Logic is defined by the principle of reference
These reflections make analysis easier by clarifying the conceptual side of various abstract mathematical and logical objects; however empirical problems remain regarding, for example, actual infinities and the meanings of actual infinities… and other abstract concepts
This shows that abstract objects do not exist outside space (or time) but, rather, that their being in or outside extension is, according to the case, partly or totally irrelevant to their being. Similarly, the immanence of reference shows that abstract objects are not characteristically intangible. It is only the incomplete prior understanding of abstract objects that renders them apparently intangible and apparently not resident in space (or time)
Sources of abstract character. Mathematical Objects are those whose form is simple enough to be capable of symbolic study and sufficiently universal to be usefully applicable. It is sometimes thought that mathematical proficiency is a fortuitous result of other proficiencies that are adaptive. It is not clear that this is altogether true, first, because, as the principle of reference reveals, mathematical and physical intuition are not disjoint and, second, especially though hypothetically in that even though mathematical ability is not universal it may have been selected for in cultural adaptation. Universals have an abstract character in that they are generalizations of aspects of particulars; in fact, universals now appear to be a cross of particular and abstract aspects. Values are abstract in that they are not present actual Objects but preferred potential Objects whose preference is determined by some combination of adaptation, adapted-ness, and intuition-symbolic process
A system of Objects
Being, the Universe, Difference, the modes of difference, Domain, Complement, Entity-Process, the Void… are particular objects. Relation, property, form, mathematical objects, value, morals, ethics, truth… may be regarded as abstract; however, even in abstractness the abstract have an aspect of the particular, e.g., the particular relation. An Entity as entity—as distinct from entity-process—is abstract. The Jesus Christ of this earth is particular; but this particular defines a recurrent particular Object that is also an abstract Object that may also be called ‘Jesus Christ’
Every particular Object defines a variety of abstract Objects. The set of all identical Objects recurrent over space at a particular time is abstract; this abstract Object may have temporal features. The set of identical Objects recurrent over all extension and duration is another abstract Object. This Object may be thought of as atemporal or, perhaps more precisely, as one that is not atemporal but one whose temporal features are not of any relevance to its nature
Although a simple emotion may be seen as referring to the body, its Object may be regarded as an action or the outcome of action. An emotion may be experienced as vague; however, if the outcome is a simple polar continuum such as move closer or further away, then the emotional Object may be regarded as capable of precision. Whether this line of development is interesting is left for development. More interesting and even profound is interaction between cognition and low level emotional-feeling in which cognition without feeling is empty even if present and emotion is a function also of cognition is developed in the detailed essays—Home
The fundamental concept of the metaphysics
•The Object emerges as perhaps the fundamental concept…
The foregoing thoughts show the immense and profound depth of the fundamental principle
Logic, Grammar and Meaning
The logics and what is constant in grammar may be seen as the requirements on concepts (including conceptual systems) in order for them to have the possibility of reference and no impossible reference (and therefore actual reference)
Thus Logic and Grammar have meaning
The ultimate depth of the metaphysics shows final meaning of the associated necessary terms. Experience with the system shows that even in this final case, ‘meaning’ can be distributed in various ways among the terms
In the implicit breadth there is of course flux of meaning without finality—this infinite flexibility lies within the final meaning described above
Generally, meaning is immanent in use-in-context; even lexical meaning lies in system and not words alone; the system of meaning and therefore particular meanings is dependent on context and therefore system; while context is roughly ‘situation’ that is only an approximation—in any given situation, individuals perceive and interpret at least somewhat differently and therefore may be said to have a different context in the same situation