universal no abstract?

A universal element, be it arbitrary or slightly less so – eg, a Universal declaration of human rights (arbitrary) Vs Universality of H2O, etc. – are simply sequences that may (by legislation or evolution) be applicable throughout a fair bit of timespace.
It can be argues that the longevity of such universal is linked to the abstract elements they might be made with. However, It seems that sequences they are not.
Not?
Not because an abstract sequence operates from drawing away from the specific to the general while having a new ability to both allow for the abstracted and be a radical (a different, not necessary linked to the abstracted entity).
Hence Blue – or BlueNess – is an abstract sequence of the blue in a shirt, eyes, sky, etc. – it allows these specific instances to draw In blue and use it. Also, at the same time, Blue is its own sequence independent of the sequences, with its own character. Hence we can feel Blue, listen to Blues, and wear blue at the same time..
While blue has a Universal element in the sense it can be blue in andromeda as well as on earth’s moon – that Universality is part of the sequence, not the whole within in which the sequence is definable.
Same thing perhaps i should say re generality. The generality of categories. No?
No?
No difference between Blue, bill of rights/h2o and the category of mammals?
I think that perhaps there is, no?
Not a difference?
What happens when we consider tigers and mice?
Do we not say that the mice can be linked categorically with rodents and using the same method – tigers are linked with cats?
The categories of cats and rodents can not Be without the specifics that make them, no?
Why?
I think it is due to categories being both arbitrary and non-sensual. Rodents is a category. Rodentness might be a sensation of the imagination that might perceive rodents as a unified category.
If I make the plantibian category where all plants & amphibians are being generalised, am having to link with plants & amphibians constantly. However If this was Plantibianess, the sense of crossing and unity of sequence of amphibians and plants through oxygen and water, then it seems like a possible abstract is born. A sequence that, with the focus on sensation – hence having its own unique frictions, can be on its own, able to gain a new term that need not refer to neither plants nor amphibians but to itself, eg, H2OinOutOrganicLife. (not an elegant terms, but I think it demonstrate the notion of differences between abstract, general and universal.)
No?
Not?
Non of these is claiming non-linkage among these elements. However, the claim here is of a nucleus of interval-difference-friction that operates uniquely in the general, universal and the abstract.
By analogy:
the set of 99, 2, 7, 77, 102, 107 – is not the set of 99, 5, 77, 7, 107, 102 – and bot are not 102, 107, 97, 2, 5, 7, 77, 99
no?
No?
Don’t we know that the sequences that each of these sets will be used as, will be unique?

Leave a Reply