Alfred,
Would you please define what you mean by "concrete things" from the
perspective of your theoretical model?
By positive and negative I simply meant the co-occurring pairs of opposites
that we encounter in everyday life and that were the basis out of which the
thread on units of analysis began with some comments of co-constitutive
relations. These range from the attraction of north to south in magnetism
to, as you pointed out, good and bad.
You wrote "Classes of things do not interact, only the concrete things
themselves. " and I must agree with you insofar as we classes means
abstract universals. This is not the case, however, when we are dealing with
what is known in the Hegelian tradition as "concrete universals". I notice
that you have referenced C.S. Peirce repeatedly. Peirce himself supported
the idea that universals do have a real existence and that they are not
simply abstract, or as he would have phrased it: Firstness in Thirdness. In
this respect Peirce's solutions to many of the logical problems he worked
with bear a strong resemblance to the Hegelian approach.
Paul H. Dillon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 01:00:49 PDT