A Novel Ontology (Abstract Objects)
The title contains a pun, for which I apologize.
Consider a crime novel, for instance, The Maltese Falcon by Dashiell Hammett. We can reduce the novel as follows.
-> Novel composed of
-> Chapters composed of
-> Paragraphs composed of
-> Sentences composed of
-> Words composed of
-> Symbols (letters of the alphabet, spaces, periods, commas, etc.)
But at the level of symbols, the novel has evaporated in that the same symbols arranged differently could conceivably create a harlequin romance novel, or a spy novel. It seems the novel is the particular pattern of symbols which compose words which . . . chapters which compose the novel.
But The Maltese Falcon as consisting of symbols in a particular pattern isnt quite right either because we could encode the novel in a pattern of zeros and ones. In fact, thats exactly how the novel would be stored on a computer in ASCII format. But theres nothing sacred about ASCII format; The Maltese Falcon could be encoded in Unicode format. Or in Morse Code. Or imagine there were two chemical elements which can be joined in arbitrarily long strings to form a molecule. If we let element 1 represent zero and element 2 represent one, then a very long molecule could encode the novel. In fact, there are probably innumerable ways to encode a novel.
So, what is the novel itself? Yes, it can be encoded in symbols, in bits, whatever; but what is it irrespective of any encoding? What is the novel in itself? It appears to be a sequence of thoughts, of ideas. The opening sentenceSamuel Spade's jaw was long and bony, his chin a jutting v under the more flexible v of his mouthdescribes the facial features of a man. It contains the ideas of a man, a mans jaw which is long and bony, etc.
If, in fact, a novel is a sequence of particular ideas, then a novel is an immaterial entity. Yes, it can be encoded in matter, in black print on white paper, in the electrical state of computer bits, in our hypothetical chemical molecule. But its immaterial. We might call it an abstract object.
But abstract objects are often said to lack causal power. The number 2, on its own, cant cause anything to happen in the physical universe. But if The Maltese Falcon is indeed an abstract object, then an abstract object can have causal powers. For instance, the novel can entertain, cause me to feel suspense, happy, sad, etc.
If, on the other hand, a novel is not an abstract object, then what is it?
Consider a crime novel, for instance, The Maltese Falcon by Dashiell Hammett. We can reduce the novel as follows.
-> Novel composed of
-> Chapters composed of
-> Paragraphs composed of
-> Sentences composed of
-> Words composed of
-> Symbols (letters of the alphabet, spaces, periods, commas, etc.)
But at the level of symbols, the novel has evaporated in that the same symbols arranged differently could conceivably create a harlequin romance novel, or a spy novel. It seems the novel is the particular pattern of symbols which compose words which . . . chapters which compose the novel.
But The Maltese Falcon as consisting of symbols in a particular pattern isnt quite right either because we could encode the novel in a pattern of zeros and ones. In fact, thats exactly how the novel would be stored on a computer in ASCII format. But theres nothing sacred about ASCII format; The Maltese Falcon could be encoded in Unicode format. Or in Morse Code. Or imagine there were two chemical elements which can be joined in arbitrarily long strings to form a molecule. If we let element 1 represent zero and element 2 represent one, then a very long molecule could encode the novel. In fact, there are probably innumerable ways to encode a novel.
So, what is the novel itself? Yes, it can be encoded in symbols, in bits, whatever; but what is it irrespective of any encoding? What is the novel in itself? It appears to be a sequence of thoughts, of ideas. The opening sentenceSamuel Spade's jaw was long and bony, his chin a jutting v under the more flexible v of his mouthdescribes the facial features of a man. It contains the ideas of a man, a mans jaw which is long and bony, etc.
If, in fact, a novel is a sequence of particular ideas, then a novel is an immaterial entity. Yes, it can be encoded in matter, in black print on white paper, in the electrical state of computer bits, in our hypothetical chemical molecule. But its immaterial. We might call it an abstract object.
But abstract objects are often said to lack causal power. The number 2, on its own, cant cause anything to happen in the physical universe. But if The Maltese Falcon is indeed an abstract object, then an abstract object can have causal powers. For instance, the novel can entertain, cause me to feel suspense, happy, sad, etc.
If, on the other hand, a novel is not an abstract object, then what is it?
Comments (6)
Indeed. Aka a "text".
Quoting Art48
Nothing. Don't be greedy.
You'll need to look at differences.
Renoir or someone - I forget - once said to Mallarme, "Maybe I should try my hand at writing poetry. I have so many ideas!" To which Mallarme responded, "Alas, poems are not made of ideas, but of words." In a similar mood perhaps, William Carlos Williams defined the poem as "a small machine, made of words."
As it happens, John Huston's film of The Maltese Falcon is a nearly word-for-word adaptation, through a lucky historical accident. But that doesn't quite make it a new encoding of the novel; it is a new work of art that tells almost exactly the same story, and in a way we can recognize as similar. Nearer to the novel than any translation or paraphrase into other words could be, I think.
It's an interesting question.
"Objects" don't hold any special privilege, their boundaries are largely human drawn. With that in mind there should not be a problem in admitting informational objects to your ontology.
Computer programs and genetic codes are great examples of informational objects which have causal effects on the world.
But, the Maltese Falcon, on it's own, cannot do any of these things. It must be encoded in some way to exert causal power.