RE: virus: pop quiz #14

Joe E. Dees (
Fri, 21 May 1999 15:44:20 -0500

From:   (Brett Robertson)
Date sent:      	Fri, 21 May 1999 03:45:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        	RE: virus: pop quiz #14
Send reply to:

> prescriptive is to descriptive as normative is to...
> Assuming "fruit" (Joe):
> Apples may be normative of fruit. Apples, AS A NORM, relate to fruit,
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
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
> MindRecreation Metaphysical Assn.
> BIO:
> ...........
> Put your item up for auction! Bid on hot opportunities! Click HERE to
> view great deals!: