The abstraction starts with one given (as context) and results with another given (as result). Hence, in an act of abstraction we have two relations between the abstraction and givens:
- Between the abstraction, and the given (as context)
- Between the abstraction, and the given (as result)
In the previous posts I concentrated mainly on the first one, i.e. the given, and how further it can be determined through abstractions.
Let’s concentrate on the second one: The relation between the abstraction and the given as result
Without the result, the act of abstraction is not abstraction. So, we might try to focus on color, shape, etc…, but if there is no given as result of this, we don’t say that we focused on color, shape, etc… (only that we tried)
The possible results of given abstraction are falling under that abstract. So “color” is any possible given(quale) that can be result of succesfull abstraction(e.g. attention to) of color; “shape” is any possible given(quale) that can be result of succesful abstraction of shape, etc…
For example, when we say “focus on the color”, whatever is the result of the abstraction of color, IS A color. (Again we are assuming there to be result at all).
Those kind of abstractions (as color and shape in those examples), in such way, don’t have existence qua abstractions, nor are recognized, imagined and thought qua abstractions; they are recognized, imagined and thought as connected to a possible given which is result of the abstraction.
So, connecting the two relations between the abstraction, and the givens, I will try to explain, how is relation between two abstracts possible. For example “red is a color”.
Red is any given which can be determined as red. But any such given quale which can determined as red, must be necesseraly result of the focus on color, “IS A COLOR”.
So the connection of the abstractions is done through the given, the relation between the abstractions is given, connecting the abstractions by which we got to the given, and abstractions used to determine it.