top
study-index
prior
next

------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABCD ENTITY: INSTANCE / TYPE      1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whenever I use a noun, I refer to some entity, such as "bread". However,
the meaning of this noun is ambiguous. It may invoke either a concrete 
object present in a given situation: "this bread is very tasty" , or 
an idea: "bread is the only food one never tires of". This ambiguity 
occurs at the very base of the language and reflects the basic cognitive
dichotomy which may be called ENTITY and whose terms are INSTANCE and 
TYPE.

The TYPE "bread" is my subjective faculty to recognize some concrete 
object as bread, it is a collection of qualities defining  "bread", 
it is a definition. 

The INSTANCE "bread" is this particular piece I am holding, it is a 
concrete object satisfying the definition pertinent to the type.
 
Invocation of an ENTITY as a dialectic synthesis, i.e. ASSIGNEMENT 
of an ENTITY INSTANCE to its TYPE is the most fundamental cognitive 
operation. It is expressed by the most basic language construct,
the assertion of the form: "I is T", whose components are: 
"I"  the INSTANCE,
"T"  the TYPE (name, definition, quality),
"is" the assignement operator.
For example: "this (object) is (a) table", "(this) table is black".

In AA we have discussed the elementary dichotomy SUBJECT / OBJECT. 
Entity's instance given, concrete, existing is objective. Entity's
type is manifestation of subject's faculties of classifying, ordering
and recognizing given instances, in one word, entity's type is
subjective.

In terms of the contemporary science ENTITY is an elementary
observation, its INSTANCE is the observed object and its TYPE is 
observer's knowledge, his model allowing to recognize, and to 
interprete the instance.

Let us note marginally the astonishing career of the assignement
operator in the european culture. Grammatically it happens to be
a verb and in spite of its auxiliary function it admitts formally 
the infinitive "to be" just like the verb "to talk". However, while 
"to talk" clearly designates a specific action, "to be" does not 
designate anything at all, unless specified "to be what". "To be (a) 
table ..." or, explicitly "to be an INSTANCE of the ENTITY "table" ..."
is an expression introducing the definition-, the type "table": "To be 
(a) table, an object has to satisfy the following definition ...".

ABCD ENTITY: INSTANCE / TYPE      2

"To be (a) table ..." is a way of saying "table means ...", a clumsy
way perhaps, but still meaningfull. "To be" by itself, on the contrary,
is entirely empty and meaningless. Consequently, the most famous
question of the european culture "to be, or not to be" is no question 
at all and two most important philosophical works of our century
"L'Etre et le Neant" and "Sein und Zeit" have meaningless titles.
We are certainly aware, of the misunderstanding being largely verbal. 
"To be" may imply "to exist", "to live", "to be conscious ...".
 Nevertheless, the usage of the vague cliche "to be" rather than of 
the clearer and more elegant "to live" suggests a tendency to a 
pseudo-mysticism dressed up as intellectual pretention, tendency deeply 
rooted in our civilisation.

Strangely enough, the most sincerely mystical language of the judeo -
christian culture, the hebrew, does without the auxiliary "is". 
"(The) house is great" is in hebrew "bait gadol", "house great".
Assignement operator is implicit, but the assignement is carried out
as clearly as in english. No "is" results in no "to be". ("Lihiyot" has 
an entirely different connotation). Shakespear's question cannot be 
directly translated into hebrew. Absence of the misleading cliche 
directs the ontological interrogation towards its legitimate domaines 
of existence, life and consciousness and posibly accounts for the 
relative sincerity of the hebrew mysticism.