Skip to content

()??

an idea re abstract and abstraction? say we have an abstraction, like money. £10 can be de-abstracted into x object. in a sense, £10 is a sort of cloaked object ~ where ~ is ~ as long as it hasn’t been de-cloaked, converted into a visible – rather than thought, social agreement-based – matter. (perhaps ~ is the Wrong sign.. Just mean that its an infinite possibility of a £10 value range..)

However, Abstract Is the material in and of itself. It requires no materialisation, no “de-cloaking”, no conversion to be its own self and have its own value as a unique character. £10 have a value because they can be turned into stuff Other than £10. (In thAT sense it could be very interesting to check the Being that’s being just because it isn’t being itself – as being itself – however here am just trying to clear elements in a cloudy mind..)
The number 10 is an abstract as a being, in its own ontology because it require no conversion for its being. I t can be £10 as much as it can be 10 in a calculation of 10×3 for fun, and as much as it can be in a number set – or indeed, just on its own for fun and frolics.

In that sense, perhaps the abstraction is for a function where as the abstract could be function – but might not require?

Where do abstracts come from?

hummmm