I already said that as result of our attention, something is given to us.
The attention as act is act of abstracting, and the result of the abstraction is given.
It was also said, in the notes there that in one other sense, that which is given as result is not abstract – if we put our focus on the color of the object, when we ignore all other things, what is left, is given and concrete result (we can call it qualia or not, depending on your preferences), and is set against abstract (abstract in this sense would be absense of the given/concrete).
But here we stumble into a problem. If the result of the abstraction is always something which is given, how can then “determining” make sense ? When we want to determine color of a thing, we want to say it is red, or when we want to determine its size to say it is big, etc…
So, let’s rephrase this problem in this way: the result of abstraction is given and concrete, but one can’t determine something as a concrete/given. We need to determine something as abstraction.
The idea is this – we have an object on which we focused by our attention, and thus abstracted it from the whole experience of the world (or whatever, let’s not discuss this for now). To determine its color, we need to focus on the color, and we end up with the concrete/given (color). But something is still missing, we didn’t get to abstract color, so we can’t say that we determined the color of the object as red, green or some other.
Maybe we need one more abstraction, but wound’t one new abstraction just return another given, and still leave us with the same problem (just on different place)?
How to make peace between the concrete and the abstract ?
A brood comb 