Lee:

An important question you pose - ie, how do we establish our understanding of an abstract concept?
In this regard, I utilize the following confined definition of abstract:

abstract (plural abstracts)
  1. An abridgement or summary of a longer publication. [First attested around 1350 to 1470.][1] quotations ▼
  2. Something that concentrates in itself the qualities of a larger item, or multiple items. [First attested in the mid 16th century.][1] quotations ▼
    1. Concentrated essence of a product.
    2. (medicine) A powdered solid extract of a medicinal substance mixed with lactose.[2]
  3. An abstraction; an abstract term; that which is abstract. [First attested in the mid 16th century.][1] quotations ▼
  4. The theoretical way of looking at things; something that exists only in idealized form. [First attested in the early 17th century.][1]
  5. (art) An abstract work of art. [First attested in the early 20th century.]
  6. (real estate) A summary title of the key points detailing a tract of land, for ownership; abstract of title.

Currently, it seems to be thought that we construct such things as abstract thoughts by combining our fundamental language parts of the cortex (Broca’s area, Wernicke’s area, Heschl’s gyrus) with fronto-parietal connections, especially including the sensory-motor areas.  This suggests that we somehow include interpretation of the sound of the abstract concept expressed as a word or words, with some sensory-motor activity.  I am not clear exactly how this works - and have not been able to find a conclusive work describing the mechanisms involved.  To an unknown extent, mirror neurons are involved.  Suffice it to say that we appear to associate some sort of sensory-motor activity and memory with that which is abstracted.

My presentation was strongly influenced by the multicortical “processing” which occurs when we deal with abstractions.  For instance, the word used for something, especially something abstract, is in-and-of itself and abstraction.  The “sound” of the word “tree”, for instance, doesn’t tell us anything about the nature of the tall, leafy, swooshy-sounding thing when the wind blows.  Somewhere along the way, we learned that “tree” sound meant that swooshy-sounding thing when the wind blows AND that it was a generic rather than categorical thing - it didn’t necessarily mean a particular tree, unless otherwise noted.

I suspect that attaining a sense of what “justice” means began with understanding the concept of fairness.  It is apparent that 2-4 year-old children seem to constitutively understand and apply that concept, perhaps through their capacity for emotional and cognitive empathy.  In time, with multiple examples and experiences, the child may generalize their understand to include the wider, and multi-definitioned, concept of justice.

Underlying all this expanding understanding is the inate analogizing function of the human brain (see: https://www.amazon.com/Surfaces-Essences-Analogy-Fuel-Thinking/dp/0465018475/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=hofstadter+and+analogy&qid=1595437901&sr=8-1).

The question/s you pose are important as well as fundamental.
The answers which I pose are an answer and not the answer.

Best regards,

Waldemar

Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD
(Perseveret et Percipiunt)
503.631.8044

Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein)

On Jul 22, 2020, at 5:06 AM, Leland Beaumont <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Thanks for a great presentation.
 
I want to better communicate an idea I struggled to express during the Monday night forum.
 
The idea is that “we have no consistent prototype for the word ‘justice’”.
 
How do we learn the meaning of words? In the example of the word “tree” we learn this that and the other are trees, and bushes, shrubs, flowers, grass and cell towers are not trees. From these specific examples our language brains construct a protype to link to the word (symbol) “tree”.
 
Contrast this with learning the word “justice” How can we point to examples of justice? A few examples form the past few months include neck kneeling, commuting the sentences of Rodger Stone, and kidnapping demonstrators. A broader sample ranges from “an eye for an eye” to broad reparations. Theories of justice include retribution, restoration, remuneration, rehabilitation, and more. I contend the we don’t share any single concept that converges to the word “justice”. Equating justice with fairness is problematic because fairness itself is at least three concepts. We also need to ask “justice for whom”, “justice when” and “justice why”.. 
 
While Waldemar described the difficulty learners (think young children) have in grasping abstract concepts, I contend that the lack of a broadly accepted prototype for various abstract words (such as “Justice”) is a large part of the problem. The word “Justice” is a composite of different concepts and these differing concepts need to be extracted separately and named separately to allow us to form a language prototype for each. 
 
One approach might be to differentiate diverse classes of actions that we now call “justice” and to take care to use that more specifically descriptive word in our communications. For example, we can take care to use terms such as “retributive justice” or “restorative justice”.
 
Thanks,
 
Lee Beaumont 
 
 
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Waldemar Schmidt
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 12:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: We Thrive TOK Meeting on Communication
 
I have no objection.
I enjoyed the opportunity to contribute.
 
Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD
(Perseveret et Percipiunt)
503.631.8044

Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein)


On Jul 21, 2020, at 6:25 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
Hi All,
  Thanks so much to Waldemar for his excellent presentation on Communication, Language, and Abstraction and the kind of thinking we need for the 21st Century. I will be posting the video of it tomorrow unless any of the participants object.

Warm regards,
Gregg
 
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Waldemar Schmidt
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 7:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: We Thrive TOK Meeting on Communication
 
Dear Friends: 
 
Thank you each and all for listening and participating.
I have a couple of articles you might find interesting.
 
Best regards,
 
Waldemar
 
############################ 
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################ 
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
 
############################ 
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
 
Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD
(Perseveret et Percipiunt)
503.631.8044

Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein)



On Jul 20, 2020, at 2:16 PM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
Hi Folks,
  We are meeting in 15 minutes to hear Waldemar walk us through his thoughts on communication. Here is the link:

Meeting ID: 883 3869 8330
Passcode: 801059
One tap mobile
+13126266799,,88338698330#,,,,,,0#,,801059# US (Chicago)
+16465588656,,88338698330#,,,,,,0#,,801059# US (New York)

Dial by your location
        +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
        +1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
        +1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown)
        +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
        +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)
        +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
Meeting ID: 883 3869 8330
Passcode: 801059
Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kdpUR81r2D
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
 
############################ 
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
 
############################ 
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1


############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1