In my judgment and by my definition, inseparable attributes can't exist separately from the existents of which they are attributes. Even so, they can be separated mentally in the imagination by means of a process of abstraction.

For example, mentally, it's possible for me to imaginatively separate its attribute of length from a blade of grass. In reality, though, the blade and its length can't be separated.

Treating such an abstracted attribute, or any inseparable part of a whole, as if it could exist separately in reality, by my definition involves the fallacy of reification.

(Please note: since concept-formation involves a process of abstraction, sometimes the term "abstraction" is also used as a synonym for the term "concept." I use the term "abstraction" to denote a process, though, which itself is part of the process of concept-formation - and I use the term "concept" to denote an eventual product of that process of which abstraction is a part.)

Note

¹Although I've formulated this definition in my own words, in my judgment, I drew inspiration and benefit in doing so from Ayn Rand's discussion of abstraction in her book, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

I often post stories about Aliana in my What's New blogs.

With the word "audience" I mean to include the possibility that there is only one person in the audience, who might even be the person who created the art work (for example, reading one's own manuscript; reciting one's own poem; or viewing and/or touching one's own sculpture). Of course, the audience could also involve many and could exclude the person who created the work.

Note

¹This definition, while strictly mine, with the help of the following sources evolved such that it satisfied me far more:

• the definition of art that Ayn Rand presented in her book, The Romantic Manifesto
• the reconstruction of Ayn Rand's esthetic and literary philosophy that Chris Matthew Sciabarra provided in his book, Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical
• various of Marshall Rosenberg's discussions of the nature of - including the stimuli and causes for - emotional responses, especially in his book, Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life.

Elaboration

For example, assume that I view a sunset and that I declare, "When I look at that sunset I feel overjoyed because it deeply satisfies my need for beauty." In this case, the sunset stimulates in me an intensely personal, affirmative and integrated sense of life response. The sunset embodies a combination of characteristics that - when I view them - triggers an emotional response that's rooted in my core evaluations, which in turn are rooted in my needs. In a sense, being in the presence of the sunset constitutes my kind of experience, one that resonates with my soul.

When another person declares that some specific thing satisfies his or her need for beauty, typically I guess that the response involves the same principle.

Note

¹This definition, while strictly mine, evolved in ways more satisfying to me with the help of the following sources:

• the discussion of art that Ayn Rand presented in her book, The Romantic Manifesto
• the reconstruction of Ayn Rand's esthetic and literary philosophy that Chris Matthew Sciabarra provided in his book, Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical
• various of Marshall Rosenberg's discussions of the nature of - including the stimuli and causes for - emotional responses, especially in his book, Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life.

For example, drinking water satisfies an animal's need for hydration. Benefits vary in intensity. Maximum benefit means maximum satisfaction of an organism's needs, which also means maximum enrichment of the organism's living action.

As do my fundamental, philosophical principles of reality, identity and non-contradiction, in my terms, the principle of causality provides a different vantage point on the fact that what is, is.

To clarify how, for me, the principle of causality restates those of reality, identity and non-contradiction, it's satisfied me to restate the principle of causality this way: The nature of an existent causes the nature of that existent's being to be what it is. In my terms, what is, is (reality); what a thing is, is what it is (identity); in a specific respect and at a specific instant, a thing is what it is, and is not what it's not (non-contradiction); and what a thing is causes it to be what it is (causality). (For me, action, motion, change and endurance are particular types of being, so "what a thing is causes it to be what it is" captures the same, basic meaning as does "the nature of the existent that acts, moves, changes or endures, causes the nature of that existent's action, motion, change or endurance to be what it is.") By my standards, each such principle implies each of the others and each provides a different focus on the same reality.

Also in my terms, now emphasizing the different focus provided by each principle, just as the principle of identity focuses on a thing's limits, so the principle of causality focuses on its freedoms.

By my epistemological standards, the concept "causality" ultimately can be defined only ostensively. See DEFINITION (OSTENSIVE).

For example, two people who lean against one another in mutual support embody reciprocal causation.

While paying attention to their wider context, a person can appreciate that even more "linear," A to B types of causation also ultimately involve reciprocal attributes.

For example, a bird can eat a whole worm because the worm is the specific type of entity that it is. If the worm were a whole mountain instead, the bird would not be able to eat it. The worm's nature is relevant to causing the bird to embody the capacity to eat it. The bird and the worm causally effect one another and embody reciprocal causation.

Note

¹This definition, while strictly mine, in my opinion benefits from the reconstruction of Ayn Rand's ontological philosophy - and from his discussion of reciprocal causation - that Chris Matthew Sciabarra provided in his book, Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical.

Note

¹Although this is strictly my own definition, I'm grateful for what I've learned from the work of Marshall Rosenberg - including from his book, Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life - and the degree to which it has informed and influenced my formulation of this definition. I can't imagine having formulated this definition in this manner without Marshall Rosenberg's influence.

Prior to having discovered the work of Marshall Rosenberg, I also benefited from consulting the following reference.

"compassion," Answers.com, Reference, Words, WordNet (A semantic lexicon of word connections and related words.) http://www.answers.com/topic/compassion [June 24, 2005]

My life partner/wife, Cherita, and I joined as Members of the Countryside Church Unitarian Universalist congregation in May 2005. Our daughter, Aliana, attends Religious Education classes and some services (some for children, some for adults) there.

My father, Len, was for years a Member, and today remains an actively participating Friend, of this church. My mother, Barbara, also had been a Member and then a Friend of the church, until she died in the year 2002. The Memorial Service that commemorated and celebrated her life, and at which I delivered a eulogy, was also held at this church.

The wedding of Cherita and me, which was held at the Horace Williams House in Chapel Hill, North Carolina in 1999, was officiated by Rev. Charles Kast. He is a Unitarian Universalist minister who serves a UU congregation in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Prior to moving, early in the year 2005, to the suburbs northwest of Chicago, Illinois, Cherita and I did sometimes attend services at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Raleigh, North Carolina.

During childhood, I regularly attended Religious Education classes and some services with my parents in the CCUU congregation.

During high school, I even engaged in a debate with the man who was then CCUU's settled minister, Rev. Ruppert L. Lovely, on the subject: "Is Science Based on an Article of Faith?" This debate was held in the church sanctuary immediately following that Sunday's worship service. I argued that science is not based on an article of faith. Rev. Lovely argued that it is.

Countryside Church Unitarian Universalist (CCUU) participates in the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA).

For more information about CCUU, please visit the Countryside Church Unitarian Universalist (CCUU) web site.