I think there are are what might be termed “theories of abstract” that are dualistic to a certain extent. Philosophically they seem Platonic in the way they divide between abstract and concrete.
e.g we have the abstract of 2 that can be concretised by any tangible couples. 2 apples, 2 universes, 2 atoms, etc.
Nowadays, the tory UK government has decided to run after an abstract they call “extremism”. They claim that extremism has concrete samples in mosques, and therefore call upon the british islamic oriented people, to report individuals that indeed embody “extremism”.
However, I think the interesting thing is that many people that are actually involved with islamic people and mosques, do not recognise the abstract of “extremism” in the particularities of their lives.
Therefore, a fair few claim that the policy of targeting extremists is doomed.
In a sense, I think they say that the abstract of Extremism, is somewhere between un acceptable to unrecognisable to have any ability relating to concrete cases. In that sense, the exersi8se is an attempt to make a particular meaning appear and behave as if it was an abstract, rather than Be an abstraction for a certain kind of concrete elements.
This, in a way, might be a meaning oriented abstract that pretends to have a concrete linked to it – but it ain’t.
In itself perhaps, we could make an abstract called “mean-impo” and define it as that which constantly attempts to impose meanings while pretending the very meanings are actual samples from life. In that way, it imposes meanings both on itself and others.
Another such example is the abstract of “americaness”, “hinduness”, “aborgininess”, etc.. While these tend to link with a set of people, it tends to fail recognising that these very connections are made from individual narratives rather than overall meaning that is specific to a given set and not another.
hence pretends there are concrete examples for its abstraction, yet keeps failing to find and apply these without coercion. (eg the conservatives going after both marginalised communities and within a sector dependent on the government – public sector.)
These examples of abstracts which come via the process of abstraction are without concrete manifestations because, it seems to me, there might have been a mistake in the abstraction process. The process seems to have mis “diagnosed” a given set of elements, for example, and dresses that set with some notion that attempts to apply as a whole.
I think there is another way of abstract to have nothing to do with concrete that, it seems, differentiates “abstractions” from “abstracts”.
That is when an abstract might have its own character that is, in and of itself, its own “concrete”.
For example, the number 2. It might be regarded as an abstraction of all couplings. However, it also has its own character that makes it something Other than an abstraction. The fact 2 is an even prime, for example, is a particular element for the number, and does not require treating it as a manifestation of all possible couplings. e.g. if we fancy checking if and when there are even primes, we get to argue over the character of 2.
That is different, for example, from N of all numbers, or Extremism of that which the tories considers appropriate. In both cases, we need the direct link of the abstractions to deal with them. N is in some logical argument to represent any Number, and “fighting extremism” is a line that uses Extremism as if everyone knows what it is beyond that abstraction. The abstraction is a place holder because the tory who might utter it considers a time waste to attempt spelling what they talk about. (again, “talk about is a manifestation link..)
Therefore, I think it can be argued that abstracts, while they might include – rather than preclude – abstraction, have their own characters. These elements that define them as either emerging entities or as individuals, require addressing these abstracts in ways that the concrete-abstract duality fails.
Hence when considering abstracts, perhaps it might be interesting to use when they are indeed, abstracts rather than abstractions.
For example, the carness of cars – does it have its own character? Perhaps it does, but, am I able to consider it, or am I actually in vehicleness?
When I use an N for any-number, is it using N for numberness? Or perhaps, the consideration should be for Numericality?
I think here we can get, perhaps a beginning of something which emerges.. I do not like “emerges” as it contains a certain oxymoron of cause-effect and non-link-able. ie I do not need to link the N of numericality – with the abstraction of an ability by certain elements to be expressed via numbers, as its the character of being Numerical that am focusing on. Like the character of 2.
The thing with that kind of approach is that it can lend itself to focusing on stuff as if it were abstract, while it being an abstraction.
This makes the approach very appropriate to the if movements.
(ie if X ^ ? when if as in questioning in the approach general, ? the line in particular, X is an abstract, and ^ is an interval from the question of time/period in the movement.)
I think that precisely the ability of abstracts to reveal themselves non abstract entities, makes the questioning here interesting. This is a genuine questioning.
I might think there is an abstract that has its own character and which is 2ness or indeed extremism. However, its a stream. Its not even an axiom, as it has no idea whether or not it can be axiomatic. Perhaps its a notion? It doesn’t know whether in fact it is as notion. Its a sensation – whether 1 or 1000000000000000000000000000000+~ hold that sensation it matters not. Its a stream of sensation that becomes a Being by attempting to Be itself rather than being true or false.
makes them more interesting than abstractions