SUO: Re: Lifecycle Integration Schema
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
LIS. Discussion Note 85
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
JA = Jon Awbrey
MP = Mike Pool
Mike,
I skip to a point at the end of your last message,
as it indicates a "failure to communicate" on my
part that may be a source of a whole lot of
unnecessary misunderstanding.
MP: Then offer a different definition, or explain
what sorts of problems his definition causes.
JA: In service of working toward a workable definition, I have all along
been providing notes intended to be helpful from various persons far
wiser than I am, who are generally recognized to have probed rather
deeply into the matter of what indeed an abstract object might be.
That's the best that I can do.
MP: Well, this is a great idea. It just wasn't
very clear that that's what you were doing.
I thought you were dismissing "abstract"
as an unredeemable "relative property of
things" completely lacking an "Essence".
Let me say this. I am not saying anything "bad" -- that is,
dismissive or disparaging -- about "abstractness" by saying
that it begins to look like a relative property, even if of
unknown arete at the present time, anymore than it would be
diminishing brotherhood, fatherhood, motherhood, sisterhood,
and elementhood to notice that they are relative properties.
So let's remove that issue from the mix-up once and for all.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o