Integration requiring a differentiator

Can someone check this:

In order to form a concept, you need at least 2 things to integrate and at least one thing to differentiate the 2 things from.

If that is correct, then I have a question:

Sometimes, I can simply see that 2 things are similar and I am not concious of any differentiator. Can someone give some light to this?

-Bill

Post 1

Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 9:18am

Hi, Bill,

In order to form a concept, you need at least 2 things to integrate and at least one thing to differentiate the 2 things from.

Right.

Sometimes, I can simply see that 2 things are similar and I am not conscious of any differentiator. Can someone give some light to this?

For example?

Nate

Post 2

Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 2:49pm

Bill, the key is that we don't see similarities. What we see are differences. When we say that two things are "similar" what we are really saying is that those two things are less different from each other than either is from some third thing.

Post 3

Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 4:13pm

Think of it this way. If every single object were some shade of blue, you couldn't form the concept of "blue," since there is no non-blue thing to differentiate from. The best you could do is differentiate between lighter and darker shades of blue.

Post 4

Monday, February 28, 2005 - 6:46am

Thanks, but I read David Kellys "A Theory of abstraction" and it appears that we do see similarities, but it is only because of the "other" things along the same line of measurement that are more different.

Post 5

Monday, February 28, 2005 - 9:47am

William Egge wrote:

Sometimes, I can simply see that 2 things are similar and I am not concious of any differentiator. "Similar" means partly alike and partly different.

Rick Pasotto wrote:

Bill, the key is that we don't see similarities. What we see are differences. When we say that two things are "similar" what we are really saying is that those two things are less different from each other than either is from some third thing.

William Egge wrote:

... it appears that we do see similarities, but it is only because of the "other" things along the same line of measurement that are more different.

Per my view and experience, we see similarities and differences simultaneously. They are "two sides of the same coin." "Less different" is another way of saying "more alike" and "more different" is another way of saying "less alike." The only difference between each pair is the words.

Post 6

Monday, February 28, 2005 - 10:13am

Merlin Jetton writes:

Per my view and experience, we see similarities and differences simultaneously. They are "two sides of the same coin." "Less different" is another way of saying "more alike" and "more different" is another way of saying "less alike." The only difference between each pair is the words.

Not really. Difference is primary. We see objects by distinguishing them from their background. Similarity must be defined in terms of degree of difference. You can't start with similarity and come up with difference.

Difference is the starting point.

Post 7

Monday, February 28, 2005 - 11:14am

Rick Pasotto wrote:

You can't start with similarity and come up with difference.

That is not my position. On the other hand, I say you can't start with difference and come up with similarity.

Post 8

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 6:57am