From: BrettMan35@webtv.net (Brett Robertson) Date sent: Fri, 21 May 1999 03:45:42 -0500 (EST) To: virus@lucifer.com Subject: RE: virus: pop quiz #14 Send reply to: virus@lucifer.com
> prescriptive is to descriptive as normative is to...
>
> Assuming "fruit" (Joe):
>
> Apples may be normative of fruit. Apples, AS A NORM, relate to fruit,
> as PRESCRIPTIVE,
>
Wrongo, schiz-boy; nothing says all fruit HAS to be apples, and
reality informs (most of ) us otherwise.
>
> in such cases that "fruit" is an abstraction which only
> might include apples but which nonetheless names the apple with regard
> to a generalization from which the specifics of an apple might be
> EXTRACTED.
>
The specifics of an apple are not extractable from "fruit"; just the
generic specifications of "fruit". The specifications of apple are,
quite trivially, extractable fron the dictionary definition beside the
entry "apple". DUH!
>
> Still assuming that apples are normative of fruit.
>
But they aren't; they are one type in a larger category, one
example, among many, of fruit. The pears are pissed at you for
excluding them.
>
> "Fruit" may also be
> considered descriptive of apples (illuminating the formula presented)
> assuming that "fruit" is a symbolic expression elicited by the icon (or
> token) "apple".
>
Among beaucoup other fruits, bretty.
>
. This particular example further suggests that said
> apple is not-- in such a case-- merely being prescribed by the generic
> term for similar objects
>
But it is not, to the exclusion of other fruits, dewde.
>
> (but is, as such, being DESCRIBED by the term
> suggested).
>
Only very generally, insomuch as an apple belongs to the category
'Fruit". A better description is found under the word "apple" (trust
me on this).
>
> In cases where what is normative may be related by what is either
> prescriptive or descriptive of it, the essential nature of the example
> may be expressed by the term "normative" in both cases (that
> prescriptive might be contrasted from descriptive) similar to how idol
> may be contrasted from icon; that is, both may be normative-- yet the
> idol be prescribed from an abstraction and the icon described by a
> symbol.
>
"Idol" isn't even one of the semiotic trilogy; you commit fallacious
"idol;"atry by illicitly bringing in this term (upon which you seem as
ficxated as upon the term "negation".
>
> Brett Lane Robertson
> Indiana, USA
> http://www.window.to/mindrec
> MindRecreation Metaphysical Assn.
> BIO: http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay
> ...........
> Put your item up for auction! Bid on hot opportunities! Click HERE to
> view great deals!:
> http://www.utrade.com/index.htm?MID=59876
>
>