From: Dick.Gray@bull.com
Date: Tue Jan 26 1999 - 09:39:14 MST
Ian:
>I defined "collective entity" as
>"the ordering of individuals in a system."
>Are you saying that we cannot discriminate
>the ordering of entities in a given system?
No, I'm not saying any such thing. I'm pointing out that when a term is
defined too broadly, it loses the power to discriminate between referents
of the term and non-referents, since everything comes to be subsumed under
the term. IOW, it loses its meaning. Clear meaning requires distinctions.
If - as it seems under your definition - anything (using "thing" in its
broadest possible sense) is an "entity", what do we need the word for? What
term shall we use to distinguish physical objects from mere collections of
objects, for example? Or things "out there" from concepts or percepts?
I believe I'm using the word "entity" in more or less the usual way, to
refer to a physical object. To me, your use of the word is just plain
confusing.
Me:
>Nobody's defending "atomism" here. No one here has denied the existence of
>holistic connections and structures.
Ian:
>Really?! Wasn't it you that said "a collection
>of objects can't itself be a physical object," and
>then modified that by saying "Perhaps I should've
>written 'mere collection of objects'." That sounds
>like a very radical denial of holistic structures.
Just exactly how is it a denial of the existence of holistic structures to
observe that they don't constitute physical objects in their own right? I
suppose you think I don't believe in beauty or love either, because they're
not physical objects.
Ian, I've agreed to disagree on the definition of entity. Why do you keep
insisting that everyone play only on your terms (pun intended)? It seems
that we probably agree more or less in essence, but we're spinning our
wheels on semantic oil slicks. Can we get some traction here?
Toward clarity,
Dick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:02:56 MST