[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Generality Is Not Abstraction

Hi David,

I don't think one can say that generalization is "somewhere in the middle." LSV proposes that as we ascend from the concrete to the abstract, from the "concrete idea" to the "abstract idea," at each point we have a unity of abstract and concrete which amounts to a kind (and degree) of generalization. But this has the character not of a monotonic increase, but a curve that LSV tries to convey through the shape of the sphere. That is to say, at first the unity is richer, but after reaching a maximum it begins to decrease in richness.  The most concrete of ideas can be expressed in only one way, so there are no relations of generality. The most abstract of ideas (LSV's example is number) can be expressed in an infinite variety of ways, but here too there are no relations of generality, because all these expressions grasp the world in the same way. But at all points there is generalization, not just in the middle. As he says, the (North) pole is the "very maximum of generalization,... the limit of abstraction." 


Attachment: Ch6.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

On Jun 7, 2010, at 8:40 PM, David Kellogg wrote:

> And where is generality? Ah, that is lies somewhere in the middle, where words are used to include the most variegated objects and their ideal representations and actions and processes, all of which are expressible in a myriad but not an infinity of different ways. And out of this chaos, Mozart, and Mendelssohn and later Beethoven, who were after all musicians of Kant's and Hegel's historical moment, can precipitate precise oppositions and concepts.
> David Kellogg
> Seoul National University of Education 
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

xmca mailing list