The Essence of Concrete-Abstraction: Bridging Abstract and Concrete Realities

While the term "metaphor" exists to describe the process of elucidating the abstract through the concrete, there is no specific term for accurately explaining the concrete with the abstract. I specify "accurately" because similar concepts, such as simile or abstraction, already exist. For simplicity, I refer to the direction from "abstract to concrete" as a metaphor.
There are two key processes: abstraction and conceptualization. Abstraction involves analyzing specific instances, extracting their essence, and forming general concepts or laws based on these characteristics. For instance, categorizing vehicles like cars and bicycles under the broader concept of "transportation" is an act of abstraction. Conceptualization, on the other hand, involves identifying commonalities and patterns through observation and summarizing them at a higher level. Creating the concept of "pet" from specific animals like dogs and cats is conceptualization. Conceptualization forms new concepts based on specific examples, with applicability limited to those new concepts, while abstraction goes a step further by forming widely applicable concepts or laws.
Conceptualization derives from specific examples to form a new concept, and its applicability is confined to that new concept. Abstraction, however, takes another step by extracting essential characteristics and forming concepts or laws that can be widely applied. Conceptualization identifies common features in specific instances to create new concepts, limiting its scope to those instances. Abstraction, by distilling the essential characteristics, applies broadly and is thus suitable for a wider range of scenarios. Therefore, while both processes aim to derive a general understanding from specific instances, abstraction is closer to universal truth, and the reverse does not necessarily hold. Understanding this distinction deepens insight into the nature of language and thought.
Words like "luck" and "happiness" conventionally serve as hypernyms. Here, we treat these words as hypernyms for convenience, but upon deconstruction, they lack the necessary "conceptualized terms" required as components of hypernyms. In other words, they behave as second-order abstractions without undergoing a first-order abstraction.
From the perspective of human development, these empty words should be avoided. Upon discovering such empty hypernyms, one should either find language for conceptualization that serves as first-order abstractions or cease treating them as hypernyms. These words should be reborn as terms that remain at the level of first-order abstractions through conceptualization or abstraction. For instance, the vague word "happiness" should be broken down into concrete feelings or states and then articulated. This effort results in specific terms like "contentment" or "satisfaction," enabling more precise communication. Similarly, instead of saying "good luck" or "bad luck," understanding and articulating the specific events and their contexts allow for a more accurate grasp of what is perceived as luck. However, as one's senses become sharper and they delve deeper into understanding, conceptualization might appear as empty hypernyms.
Continuing to articulate these abstract concepts helps us avoid being swayed by vague abstractions, leading to a deeper, more tangible understanding. Exploring the essence of words reveals that while they appear concrete, their core consists of a collection of abstract concepts. Our use of words to understand the world is subjective, capturing only a slice of reality. Thus, the concreteness of words is relatively dependent on the context and situation in which they are used, while their abstractness symbolizes the infinite transformation of our inner experiences.
Explaining the concrete solely through abstraction is a challenging task, as it forces conceptual understanding. Similarly, attempting to describe concrete phenomena using only abstraction is difficult due to the lack of tangible representation. These efforts expose the limitations of language, highlighting the interdependence of abstraction and concreteness. To understand abstract concepts, it is necessary to grasp their contours through concrete examples and to understand concrete phenomena, it is crucial to comprehend the underlying abstract principles.
The balance of concreteness and abstraction is a state or concept that holds both specificity and generality. Understanding abstract concepts benefits from concreteness while understanding concrete concepts benefits from abstract comprehension, which implies the acquisition of operational abilities. Hence, the challenging task of explaining the concrete purely through abstraction is something to be practiced.
In everyday life, one should avoid relying on the abstract nature of language to avoid confronting the complexity of inner emotions and desires, thus avoiding easy interpretations. Mistaking the satisfaction of desires for happiness and summarizing its consequences as luck entails abdicating responsibility for one's actions and stifling growth. We must explore our qualia deeply, enhancing our ability to describe the complexity of our inner world abstractly.
In conclusion, I propose the following approach and recommend its practice: In the balance of concreteness and abstraction, the goal should be to achieve an explanation where the abstract alone can elucidate the specific. A fully articulated abstract explanation represents the true concrete. Metaphor and abstraction are akin to differentiation, a process of stripping away. Thus, the essence of concreteness and abstraction lies in the arbitrary pursuit of the integration constant in indefinite integration, relying on chance (post-conceptualization). Until this constant is found, empty hypernyms always carry a +C, inevitably introducing some degree of error in communication.
Importantly, this method is not universally recommended. I am specifically advising you, the reader who has reached this point, with "expectation." It is crucial that you fully grasp this point.
The biggest misunderstanding about the use of abstract language is the inability of many to recognize the following truth: The ownership of abstraction is the ultimate expression of concreteness, and as one's ability to wield abstraction increases, it leads to human growth and true understanding. Concretization, the act of shaving down the truth for the sake of manifestation, is akin to doping, while abstraction is a gate and a living gatekeeper, the only true path to manifestation.

error: Content is protected !!