0282 Judgment is the actuality of a perspective-level nested form.  Unlike the drama of Hamlet, the scholastic objective concept is a judgment within the normal context of reason, rather than paranoia and passion.

0283 The normal context of reason_3c brings the actuality of a relation between ‘what is’ and ‘what ought to be’_2c into relation with the potential of intellectual understanding_1c.

0284 The actuality_2c goes with objective concept.  The normal context_3c and potential_1c compose objective precision.

0285 How do the four meanings figure into this model of the scholastic term “objective concept”.

0286 The first meaning (M1) goes like this: A universal may be with respect to causal operations.

0287 The following depicts the ongoing example.

0288 The other three meanings behave similarly.  Each occupies a slot for judgment.

0289 Now, back to universals.

0290 According to Izquierdo, Aristotle follows two definitions of universal.

D1. A universal can exist in the many.

D2. A universal can be predicated in the many.

0291 To me, D1 goes with what is and D2 goes with what ought to be.

0292 Here is how that fits the ongoing model of judgment_2c.

0293 This diagram implies that a third universal exists within the (universal) triadic structure of judgment.  This universal (D0) coincides with the meaning that brings D1 and D2 into relation.

0294 What does this imply?

0295 Universals are important because they participate in judgment_2c.  Judgment_2c is a primal triadic relation occurring within the normal context of reason_3c.  The potential of intellectual understanding_1c underlies judgment_2c.

0296 Judgment_2c is the natural harbor for universals.  In fact, judgment itself is a universal, since all humans share the ability to form judgments that may be diagrammed as a triadic relation.

0297 Aristotle isolated two universals (D1 and D2) and potentiated the discovery of the third (D0).

The third corresponds to the four meanings that Izquierdo assigns to universals.

0298 Now, let me return to the example of the dual-body of the king.

0299 Here is the diagram.

0300 The meaning of a universal (D0, a causal operator, imbues) brings one universal (D1, the mortal body) into relation with another universal (D2, the glorious body of the king). 

0301 The political theory of the dual body of the king, identified by Eric Santner as a precursor to the modern theory of capitalism, brings three universals into a primal triad.  Each king, just like anyone else, is really or physically bound to the universal of the mortal body.  Each king, unlike anyone else, is formally and logically bound to the universal of the royal glorious body.  The glorious body of the king is a universal with respect to political nation states.

0302 The king’s glorious body is unique to each realm.  As such, the appearance of the king’s ghost (glorious body) must be disturbing for whoever sits on the throne (a mortal body claiming to be imbued with the one unique glorious body).

0303 The relation between ‘what is’ and ‘what ought to be’_2c is primal.  There is no a priori assignment of each element to a category.  The law of non-contradiction (which applies to actuality) dictates that each element dwells in one and only one category.  There are only three elements.  There are only three categories.

0304 In order for the primal triad to unfold into a nested form, each element must be assigned one unique category.  Typically, relation is assigned the quality of thirdness, becoming the normal context of an unfolding nested form.  ‘What is’ is filled with the quality of secondness, turning into actuality in the subsequent form.  ‘What ought to be’ is endowed with firstness, ending up as the potential of the subsequent unfolding nested form.

0305 However, other permutations are allowed.

0306 The previous figure typically yields the following nested form:  The normal context of imbues₃ brings the actuality of the mortal body of the king₂ into relation with the potential of a royal glorious body₁.

0307 In the case of Hamlet, the ghost of the king takes on the mantle of secondness and the king’s deceased body becomes an exclusive concern (rich in thirdness).  The resulting nested form looks like this: The normal context of the murder of the king (mortal body)₃ brings the actuality of the king’s ghost (glorious body)₂ into relation with the potential that the king is imbued with a mission calling for retribution₁.  The political and theological relation, where the glorious body of the king imbues the mortal body of the king, has been violated.

(Indeed, Shakespeare (1564-1617) and Miguel de cervantes (1547-1616) dates to the time of the Baroque Scholastics (1600-1680)).

0308 Are universals found in reality, independent of the intellect?

0309 Izquierdo lists four positions.  He argues against three and agrees with the fourth.  Novotny provides the details.  The fourth position goes like this:

T4. By nature, a universal is common to individuals only in the intellect.  It has no other lesser than numerical unity (that is, it is indivisible).

0310 I wonder: Does the primal triad of judgment and its elements satisfy this position?

0311 Let me start with the primal triad.

0312 The primal triad is by nature common to all individuals in a community.  All communities are composed of individuals who reason_3c, thus actualize judgment_2c in the pursuit of understanding_1c.

0313 Members within each civilized community share particular primal triads.  Indeed, this is required for members of a community.  Those who cannot formulate particular primal triads (as formal acts of the intellect) are excluded from working together within an organization.  In our current Lebenswelt, many communities are so specialized that those who have not mastered particular elements and operations are excluded.

0048 In civilization, the fourth position (T4) works in two ways.  Objective precision is universal by nature.  Particular objective concepts are common to individuals in community.  Also, particular objective concepts define individuals in community by establishing conditions for belonging.

0314 The primal triad is indivisible.  It cannot be reduced to any one of its components.  In this, it has no lesser than numeric unity.  The entire primal triad must be delineated in the pursuit of explicit intellectual comprehension.

0050 This delineation is possible only in purely symbolic languages, such as speech-alone talk.  This explains my caveat: “in civilization”.  Our current Lebenswelt is potentiated by the purely symbolic qualities of speech-alone talk.

0315 Theoretically, each element of a primal triad can be extracted and labeled.  Practically, such a process fails to capture the intuitive aspects of judgment.

Remember, each element of the primal triad is a universal, steeped in varying qualities of thirdness (context and exclusivity), secondness (actuality and non-contradiction) and firstness (potential and inclusivity).  Only when a judgment becomes a nested form are the categorical assignments fixed.

0316 This brings me to the elements.

Aristotle connects two elements to universals.  These two elements are what is (existents) and what ought to be(predicates).  Izquierdo has these two elements in mind.  At the same time, he searches for how they fit into a bigger picture.

0317 He asks: What is the nature of Aristotle’s universals?

He concludes that universals exist only in the intellect.  This means that universals only exist in an intellectual actuality (or structure).  The primal triad models the intellectual structure of judgment_2c.  Only a universal may occupy each slot.

0318 This again poses the question: What is a universal (now, as an element within an intellectual structure, the primal triad)?

0319 In order to discern an answer, I must step back and see the interplay of intellect with other types of cognition in the individual in community.

0320 Here is the general interscope for the individual in community.

The student should write out each nested form as the fourth statement.  See A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form, by Razie Mah.

0321 The working model of Izquierdo’s perspective replaces decide and weigh_3c with reason_3c.  The primal triad stands in the place of judgment_2c.  The potential of intellectual understanding_1c substitutes for the possibility of rightfulness_1c.

0058 This interscope allows me to see that a relation between ‘what is’ and ‘what ought to be’_3c virtually contextualizes a phantasm_2b situating an impression_2a.

0322 In intrinsic abstraction, the elements of the triad cannot be articulated.  Since they are symbols, they cannot be imaged or pointed to using hand talk.  Pointing to something that could be interpreted as a universal suffices.

0323 For example, in hand talk, gesturing with the arm towards the back of the talker may indicate the distant past.  In speech-alone talk, fairy tales may begin with the impressionistic phrase, “Once upon a time.”

0324 These gestures_1a are sensed and decoded_3a into an impression_2a based on the potentials of various habituated cultural mechanics_1a.

0325 An impression_2a underlies the possibility of what is happening and me_1b.  More crucially, an impression_2a may be interpreted as a universal occupying the slot for ‘what is’_2c.

0326 Conjuring_3b brings a phantasm_2b into relation with the possibility of me and my impression_1b.  In Latin, the phantasm is “species expressa”.  Taking in the world is “species impressa”.  Notably, the phantasm_2b may be interpreted as a universal occupying the slot for ‘what ought to be’_2c.

0327 In this example, the phantasm_2b is interpreted to be a stage for fairy tales_2c.  It is the stage where imaginary worlds play out.  It is a testing ground for the real world.

0328 Here is how that looks within the interscope (with the ongoing working model of judgment in the perspective level).

0329 Once upon a time_2a is contextualized as remembering_2c.  Remembering_2c is a universal ‘what is’_2c that allowsintellectual understanding_1c.

0330 The distance and mystic past_2b is contextualized as mythos_2c.  Mythos_2c is a universal ‘what ought to be’_2c that may actualize intellectual understanding_1c.

0331 Three actors are on the same page, the text of a child’s book (or the campfire of a Paleolithic band), the adult presenting the tale and the children who witness the telling.

Remembering_2c and mythos_2c are universals, not because they can be extrinsically symbolized (as in this discussion), but because they are intersubjectively actual in the intellects of all the actors in an organized activity.  These universalsexist as intersubjective intrinsically abstracted beings.

0332 Judgment_2c is the intersubjective intrinsically abstracted actuality that potentiates organized activities.

0333 In civilization, organized activities among cooperators require that each participant holds similar universals, if not judgments.  Even if individuals may disagree (have different judgments), they work with the same universals.  They must hold, in common, the universals that go into ‘what is’ and ‘what ought to be’.  Otherwise, who knows what anyone else is thinking?

0334 So, what is a universal?

0335 The intellect is capable of using reason_3c to actualize a primal triad_2c, judgment_2c, within the possibilities inherent in intellectual understanding_1a.  Thus, the intellect itself is a universal structure.

0336 Whatever goes into each slot of the primal triad is a universal in a different sense.  ‘What is’ goes with existence.  ‘What ought to be’ goes with predication.  Relation goes with meaning.

0336 Aristotle formulated the universal in terms of the many.  A universal is held in common by many existents or many predicates.

0337 The category-based nested form turns this around, since the many may also refer to those who hold universals within their intellects.  The sharing of a cognitive space among many potentiates organized activities.  Universals, as objective concepts, potentiate the sharing of a single cognitive space that opens avenues for organizing our human world.

0338 A universal is an opportunity to organize our world.

0339 What is the nature of the intellect-dependent universal?

Or: What kind of unity does this universal (generated by the intellect) have?

0340 As Novotny recounts, Izquierdo lists and critiques various approaches before detailing his own favored treatment, T4.

T4 goes like this: A universal, by nature, is common to individuals only in the intellect.  It is indivisible.

0341 From T4, Izquierdo offers four propositions.

P1. Confused acts of cognition do not constitute a universal.

P2. The objective unity of a universal is generated by a substitute phantom.

P3. The unity of reason supports the unity of a universal.  All other supports are fictions.

P4. Future philosophers may consider the disposition of the universal to existence-in-many and predicability-of-many.

0342 Novotny discusses each proposition in detail.

0343 My question is: How well does the diagram of the primal triad of judgment_2c fit these propositions?

0344 Proposition P1 and P4 pertain to the primal triad_2c.

0345 The first proposition (P1) runs against nominalism, which takes universals as whatever the name evokes.  Nominalism argues that a universal is merely an act of cognition, as if the act of cognition had no real constraints (hence the term “confused”).

0346 The primal triad provides a real constraint.  Each universal must be a whole (as either a whole quality of existence, a whole predicate, or a whole operation) within a congruent triadic relation.  The two elements identified by Aristotle as universals are thus constrained by their capacities to enter into relation with one another.

The resulting judgment is intersubjective.  Others can generate similar primal triads (that is, judgments). Why?  The constraints on the universals are real.  This holds even when each universal cannot be fully symbolized (in speech-alone talk).

0347 For example, let me say this, “I am king of Bohemia.”

When asked why, I reply, “I like Bohemian beer.”

0348 Surely, the subject (the existence of lovers of Bohemian beer) is a universal.  What the subject is supposed to be(the king of Bohemia) is also a universal.  If Bohemia is a monarchy, then it has a king or queen or both.  All monarchies are predicated on this.

That leaves the relation, to which I exclaim, “The king of Bohemia must love Bohemian beer!”

0349 Surely, this act of cognition cannot be reduced to a universal.  Why?  There are many existents (beer lovers) but only one predicate (king of Bohemia).  The operation of loving beer is not sufficient to serve as a universal relation between ‘the subject’ and ‘what the subject is supposed to be’.