RSalar

I made my statement, "Just because every word denotes a concept, does not mean that every concept is denoted by a word," as a logical extrapolation from Rand's statement:(OPAR, p10) "Every word we use (with the exception of proper names) is a symbol that denotes a concept. i.e., that stands "for an unlimited number of concretes of a certain kind." I agree with her statement and I believe my statement is also correct. I was responding to a post that was pointing out to me that because Rand said what she said I must be wrong (assuming that Rand's statement is correct). Rand's statement and my statement are not mutually exclusive--it is possible logically for them both to be correct. Now on to your point (which is different, I believe, from Rand's): That all concepts must have a "sensory-perceptual label." Let's take a relatively new concept ... how about "screwdriver." In relation to the history of mankind the screwdriver is a fairly recent invention. Real screwdrivers exist in the real word and can be found all over the globe. The concept "screwdriver" is held in our minds--it is a mental construct. So far we agree. Let's now go back in time to the day the screwdriver was invented. Obviously there had to be a screw that needed to be driven before there was a need for a screwdriver. So here this brilliant machinist sits at her workbench trying to figure out a good way to drive the screw. She experiments with various ways of doing it and finally decides that a slot in the end of the screw and a tool that fits that slot works well and can easily be manufactured. She designs and makes the one and only screwdriver in existence--there is only one (some would argue that a concept can not be formed that encompasses only one thing)--and she has yet to name it. She knows in her mind what it is, she can describe it to other people using words, yet the term "screwdriver" has not yet been attributed to it. What is the mental "tag" that she uses to keep her new invention separate from all the other concepts that she has in her mind? Isn't it a mental picture? Why does it have to be a word? We know that "screwdriver" is a word and a concept now, but what was it that day when only one real screwdriver existed and only one person knew what it was (i.e., held the concept in her mind)? She held a clear picture of the tool in her mind--she could describe it with words if she needed to (but she could have also demonstrated how it worked without ever speaking a word.) A mental construct has to be formed before it can be named--and if it is formed prior to being named then it does exist (perhaps for only a second) as a concept without a "word" name. Someone also said that a mental picture is a word--but for this discussion let's use the term "word" to mean: "A sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning and may consist of a single morpheme or of a combination of morphemes."(1) I agree that for practical purposes all concepts should be tagged with some kind of sensory-perceptible label and then defined. Let's take the screwdriver again for a second and define it: A screwdriver is a tool used for turning screws. That could be any screwdriver in the world, past, present, and future. It encompasses many tools within a specific category. On the day the brilliant machinist made the very first screwdriver, hers was the only one--but the potential for many more existed. It did not yet have a name--but the need for one was obvious. If the screwdriver had failed to be a useful tool and if it did not make it out of the brilliant machinist’s workshop and if it was never given a name--would the unnamed concept now referred to as "screwdriver" have ever existed? Writing this has brought to my mind an idea for an invention that I had. I made a prototype (it is still around somewhere) and it worked but I never took it to the next level. I did not name it but I could draw you a picture and describe it with words. Are you saying that until I name this thing it is not a concept? And then bingo, it becomes a concept the instant that I name it? The concept and the concept’s name (the word—the sensory perceptible label) are two different things. I can know a word and not know the concept represented by it and I can know a concept but not know the word that fits it. If the concept is distinguishable and separate from its sensory perceptible label then it follows that it can exist without the label. (I have no idea if this theory is consistent with Rand’s view.) (1)Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V., further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

One last point regarding the quote you used: QUOTE(OPAR, p10) "Every word we use (with the exception of proper names) is a symbol that denotes a concept. i.e., that stands "for an unlimited number of concretes of a certain kind." Just because every word denotes a concept, does not mean that every concept is denoted by a word. I think that we need to make certain that we understand what AR was saying before we agree or disagree with her (we need to know her position before we can state whether we agree or disagree and ... we may still be in the clarification stage even though most Objectivists think that her position is clear and obvious). Sometimes the fact that we think something is obvious makes it that much more obscure. But you are right if clarification is being sought that should be stated.

I see your point and will attempt to follow your suggestion. Please understand however that it is not a case of me being too lazy to re-read her works or to spend more time thinking about them. I find it very helpful to pose questions and make arguments from what I believe is the Objectivist position and it is also helpful for me to make arguments in opposition to what I believe the Objectivist position is. I do this to clarify two things, 1) the real Objectivist position, and 2) my position. Most of the time when I do this my position evolves or is clarified to where it ends up being the Objectivist position. I have never and will never adopt the Objectivist position without being completely satisfied that it is mine. I can see where my approach would confuse you and will try to state which side I am arguing from in the future. Thank you for your help. I will take some time to reconsider the difference between proper nouns and concepts and, if I am unable to differentiate the unique properties of each, I will return with a clearer presentation of how my position differs from what I believe the Objectivist position is, so that you and other willing participants can help me resolve the matter. I guess you are right -- I do not know how I missed that. It must be that it is so foriegn to my understanding of what a concept is that I just assumed that she was saying something else.

I have read just about every published work of Ayn Rand. That does not mean that I understand it all, nor does it mean that even if I was to read a particular one ten more times I would understand it. Based on the posts here I would venture to say that most people here may think they understand her but do not fully. Her work on concept formation via measurement omission is not exactly an easily grasped concept. I am here to ask questions and hopefully glean a little insight. I do not take any of these posts as the definitive authorized Ayn Rand position. And I do not claim to be stating the official Ayn Rand position. The posts about the concept "inch" illustrate how many intelligent, thoughtful and intellectually honest people there are who do not yet grasp the notion that there is a difference between a concept and the physical reality of which that concept pertains. “Inch” as a concept—as a mental construct—has no physical properties, so it cannot be curved. Mental constructs are just that—ideas in our heads. Ideas do not have physical properties! The idea that proper names are not concepts confuses me. That does not mean I am here to disagree with Rand's position. I may challenge it to see if there is someone here who us able to clarify her position so that it makes sense to me. Even if you or the other posters are unable to show me why she was right I will continue to believe that she was probably correct (because on everything else she was right) but will not hesitate to challenge her position to see if it will stand up to tough analytical scrutiny. A proper name refers to a specific individual entity. When I think about that specific individual entity I may picture it, I may recall things that I know about it, and I may even get emotional about it. Why, when I think about this entity and form a mental construct of what it is, this mental construct is not a concept is beyond me. What is different about that mental process than the process of forming a concept that involves more than one existent? To me the mental process of recalling the person and what he stood for, when I say Richard Nixon, is no different that the mental process of recalling the attributes of the concept “table.” The name triggers my memory to recall specific attributes of each. The concept table has variables but the concept Richard Nixon does not, that is the only difference that I can identify. Maybe I am not using the term “concept” correctly. Maybe a concept must have variables. If so then what do we call the mental construct that we form as we acquire knowledge about a unique individual entity? I come back to a new invention. The first one is a unique individual entity—it has specific attributes that can be identified. If I name it the “thingamajig,” is “thingamajig” a concept or a proper name? If it is a proper name because it names a unique individual entity and it is not a concept, what changes when I make the second “thingamajig?” How is it possible that suddenly “thingamajig” transforms from a proper name into a concept by the simple act of me making a second item? If “thingamajig” does not change then it was a concept that described an individual entity all along.

The inch is not curved, the physical thing being measured is curved. Inch is a unit of measure -- it does not exist as a physical thing. A currved line is actually a bunch of very short straight lines or points.

It is fun to learn. I suppose that is why we participate here. I would like to respond to your notion that sign language, because it is visual language, is somehow the same as a mental picture. A visual representation that all people with good vision can see can be a word and it can represent a name for a specific concept. But a mental picture can only be seen by the person imagining it. There is no way to transmit a specific mental picture in the way you see it, to another person. You may be able to get them to see a similar picture through your description, but their mind creates one image and your mind creates another. Without “words” there would be no way to get the other person to “see” your mental picture. Also we should be clear that there is a difference between a word and a name--as pointed out by Fred Weiss. It is true that every "word" is a specific concept's name, but it generally includes a group or category of "things." When a name is used to designate a single thing then it, according to Fred, is no longer a concept. I would like to pursue this a little more though, because I am still not convinced that the term, "Objectivism" does not name a "concept." I think a "concept" is an "idea" that can be specifically identified as a unit by the mind--it needs to be distinct and definable—but I see no reason why I can not form a concept that refers to s single existent.

If Objectivism is not a concept, because it represents a single named school of thought, then neither is, Subjectivism, Platonism, Intrinsicism, etc., because they also are names for single units of philosophical schools of thought. If these individually specified and named schools of philosophical thought are not concepts then what are they? Names? What are names? Tag words that represent individual units? I was thinking that a concept was simply something formed in the mind--a thought, notion or mental construct. But you are saying that some mental constructs, specifically names, are not concepts. Is that the official Objectivist position?

Yes I have read ITOE. I think it is stretching the meaning of the concept "name" to sya it can mean any type of tag that references a particular concept. The word/concept "name" by definition is: "A word or words by which an entity is designated and distinguished from others: some of the most famous names of the 20th century."(1) Let's be real here. A mental picture is not a name. A name is a name. A is A. Human's use words to represent concepts and concepts are mental constructs representing something that is (or is thought to be) real. The words we use to denote concepts can be thought of as the concept's name. When the first human came up with the idea that men have certain unalienable rights, that idea was in his head and he had yet to tell anyone about it. He certainly came up with the idea before the idea had a name. And he was able to hold on to that idea in his mind despite the fact that the concept did not yet have a name. So you can hold concepts in your mind that do not have a name. You can even communicate that idea to another human being without ever calling the idea by it's yet to be determined name. I’ll bet Ayn Rand had the concept now known as Objectivism well formed before she named it. 1) - Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V., further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved

You are right that when I think of this thing I do picture it. But ... I don't think we should call a mental picture a "name." If a mental picture equals a name then when you meet someone and they want to know your name the conversation would go something like: "Hi, my name is Julie. What's yours?" You say, "Just use a mental picture of me--that's my name." Shocked, Julie asks, "What? .... Don't you have a name?" You say, "Yes, I told you, my name is the mental picture you form when you think of me." Julie smiles and says, "Really! Cool! You are the first person with that name!" You puff up your chest and say, "I know it and it's a lot easier than using a word name." Julie flips her hair back and asks, "Would you like to have coffee sometime?" "That would be great. I'll give you a call sometime." Julie thinks about this for a minute and asks, "When you call, how will I know it's you?" "When you hear my voice a mental picture of me will pop into your mind." "What if I don't recognize your voice?" Thinking fast you suggest, "Why don't you take a picture of me with your cell phone and store it with my number, so when I call my picture will come up?" "Perfect -- Ok I got to go ... Bye ..." Julie closes her eyes and tilts her head backwards picturing you. "Bye Julie."

What if I come up with a new invention in my labratory. I figured it out, designed it, constructed it, and tested it. And low and behold it works. I know what it is, how it works, and what function it performs. I know as much about it as I would if and when I give it a name. I show it to me wife and she asks me what it is. I tell her I havn't named it yet. She tries it out and loves it. She suggests several names for it but I do not like any of them. Every time she wants to use it she asks me to go get the "thingamagig." I know that she means the tool I invented and I get it for her but I also remind her that it is not a thingamagig. I don't like it when she calls it that and I tell her explicitly that I do not authorize that name. I tell her that if she ever calls my beloved invention a thingamagig again I will not let her use it. Now she politely asks me to get her the ... "you know" ... and I am happy to get it for her. My wife and I have both formed a concept of this invention yet it has no name. What do you make of that FeatherFall?

I do not think the thing used to measure (object, tool, device) is important to the concept inch. Here is why: This measuring device is man-made--there is no "ruler" with inch marks to be found in nature. At some point in time a man had to have made the first ruler. He made this device for the purpose of measuring length. The concept had to have been formed in his mind prior to him making the ruler--he didn't make the ruler then say, "Eureka! I have discovered a new device that can be used to measure things!" He had the idea first (formed the concept) then made the ruler to conform to his idea. (This brings up another problem: Can a concept exist without a name?) The other interesting thing is that an inch is a completely arbitrary unit of measure. We say it is 1/12 of a foot. When asked how long a foot is we say 12 inches. Someone (with big feet) broke off a stick the same length as one of his feet and carved 11 equal-distant marks on it. If you were stranded on a deserted island in need of a measuring device with nothing to use to figure out how long an inch is, you would have no way to make a ruler with inch marks (you could make a ruler with marks but those marks, if they ended up an inch apart, would be so out of luck). There is nothing in nature that is always an inch long. There is no common “standard” to be found in nature. It doesn't matter how long an inch is so long as everyone agrees to it. We arbitrarily chose a length and call it something, then we make a permanent standard reference thing that everyone can use to make his or her own rulers from. We store that standard reference thing away in a safe place so if something happens and we need to go back and check we can verify that our rulers still have marks exactly an inch apart. If I make a ruler (using the standard reference thing), then travel to a distant land and show you my ruler you will have to use my ruler to make your ruler. You may be a tiny bit off when you make yours from mine. Then you travel to a new part of the world and show someone else your ruler. Another ruler is made based on your slightly off ruler and they also make a small error. This can happen repeatedly around the world until a thousand years later on some remote island a society of people are using rulers that have inch marks that are really an inch and half long. They have no way to know how off their rulers are from the standard, but it doesn’t effect them in any way until they try to trade with people from the outside world. Unless we go back and check our ruler against the standard reference thing we have no way to know whose ruler is accurate. The only time that we all need to all have the same length inch is when we trade with each other. If I order a shoe from you using my ruler to measure my foot and you make the shoe based on your ruler. Our rulers better be the same or the shoes you make will not fit me. Question: If the entire universe doubled in size so that everything in the universe also doubled in size—every atom, every tree, every planet, every measuring device, everything—would we be able to detect the change?

I think someone early on said that the cocnept "inch" is a measurement of length and "length" applys to something that exists and it is the "something" that is is omitted. It appears that is what Ms. Rand meant by measurement omission. Thank you. I wouldn't have believed it ... but you have proved the point. An inch can refer to any number of things that are an inch in length -- it is the specific thing that is omitted. It is difficult for me to think of "things" as "measurements." That is why I was confused. I will sleep on this and see if it still makes sense in the morning. -- Good night all.

I was using the example of omitting a table's wavelength as an illistration of why omitting an irrelevant attribute is not what Ayn Rand meant by measurement omission in concept formation. I believe (and I am fully aware of how wrong I may be) that she meant that we omit the "specific" measurement of an attribute possessed by the existent. The attribute MUST be one that is required in order to form the concept. Wavelength in NOT an attribute of table so omitting it's measurement is meaningless. The location of the two points that define the limits of "inch" is NOT an attribute of the existent. These points, like the concept "inch," exist only in the mind. "inch" IS a measurement, and it is the only attribute possesed by the concept, so it can not be omitted. There are no other attributes whose measurement can be omitted. The location of this "inch" is not an attribute of inch so omitting its measurement is as useless as omitting the wavelenght in forming the concept table. On the other hand, we know that all tables have tops and all tops have measurements but we omit the measurement of the tops when we form the concept "table." The location of the table is omitted but the fact that the table has a location is not an attribute whose measurement is being omitted. Location is no more a relevant attribute of "inch" than it is of "table" so omitting its measurement is equally useless. Let's remember that we are not omitting attributes, we are omitting the specific measurement of an attribute. The attribute must exist in some quantity before we can omit its measurement.

Are you saying that the measurement that is bing omitted is the actual two points? Besides the fact that "points" do not actual exist any more than "inches" exist, these two points must be exactly an inch apart but they can be anywhere, so you are saying that the location of these two points is the measurement that is being omitted? Couldn't you likewise and by the same logic say that we omit the location measurement of "table" when we form that concept? Why is location a distinguishing attribute in this type of concept? I think "location measurement" is omitted from the concepts like "inside, outside, beside, beneath," etc., because location is an intigral part of the concept but the specific measurement has been omitted. When something is "outside" we know that is is somehere out of doors but we do not know exactly where it is outdoors--that measurement has been omitted. Maybe I am way mixed up here--but I think we must only omit measurements that are existing variables of the concept (in other words the attribute is required to form the concept but it can exist in any quantity). We don't just omit random attributes that have no bearing on the concpet being formed.

Maybe the "line" is curved but I don't think the "inch" is curved. A line, if drawn on paper, exists in reality -- it has form, but "inch" is nothing but a conceptual construct refering to a specific length. "Inches" exist only in the mind. My question is: What measurement is omitted when I form the concept "inch." Others have said that I omit all kinds of things from where the inch is, to all the objects that could be measured. I don't think "measurement omission" means omitting "attributes" that are not possessed by that which we are referring. These attributes are all the attributes that "inch" does not posses. I don't think that's quite it. I believe that "measurement omission" refers to omitting the "measurement" of an actual possessed attribute. But I have been wrong before!

Burgess, My point is that I find it interesting that someone here picked up on the word "enormity" and it's questionable usage -- then when I checked it for myself in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company they made a special point to mention that people who use "enormity" in that way "may find their words an unintended source of amusement." They were right! An actual person used "enormity" in a phrase and their words became an unintended source of amusement--just like the dictionary predicted. I find that amazing! I find it interesting for 2 reasons: 1) That it happens at all, and 2) it happens often enough that a dictionary would mention that it happens. What is going on here? Don't you find it interesting that it is possible to use a word in a perfectly legitimate manner and because other people think they know better, find the "error" amusing? The person who was amused was amused because they thought they found an error but in reality they made the error. I find it amusing that their own error about someone else's "error" caused them amusement. Maybe I am too easily amused!? I was very amused when people concluded that Dan Quale was not fit to be vice president because he spelled potato with an e. What does that have to do with being VP? Actually it is not amusing --- it's sad. Anyway -- thanks for asking. -- Ron

I've never seen, nor can I imagine, a curved inch. I can picture a curved line, but an inch, because it is (exclusively) a specific distance between two points, has no form. In order to measure the distance between two points we have to measure the imaginary straight line that extends between the two points. To meausre the distance between two points in an arc would give us an erroneous answer. Since an inch has no form, and never had a form, how can we omit it? Wouldn't that be like omitting the wave length from the concept table? Since tables do not have wave lengths there is no need to omit that measurement. I really think we are stretching this measurement omission thing when we simple say we are omitting all the measurements of attibutes that are nonexistent. We should be focusing on an attributes that do exist but that have no specific measurement. A table is a table no matter what size or color is. All tables must have some size and some color but the specific size and color does not change the fact that it is a table. (The attribute exists but its measurement has been omitted.) If "form" was the attribute that we are not measuring, there would have to be multiple and various forms that an inch could be, and no matter which form it took it wouldn't change the fact that it still is what it is--in this case an "inch." You are right, an inch has no form, because inches do not exist--if they did they would be lines. We know the concept "inch" exists but no actual hard object "inch" exists in reality. That's ok, that doesn't change the fact that we had to form that concept in our mind. When we form the concept, "inch" we retain the only attribute that it has--the fact that an inch is specific distance between to points--that distance being an inch. We can not omit the measurements of nonexistant attributes (like omitting the wave length of tables), because before you can omit something, that something has to exist! Since the concept "inch" has only one attribute and that attribute has a very specific measurement I find it impossible to omit it. When I omit the measurement from "inch" I am left with nothing. So rather than helping me form the concept, measurement omission destroys the very concept I am try to form.

I think the concept inch exists only in the mind because if there were real metaphysical inches out there we would be able to see, feel, and/or taste them. Yes there are real things that have length--this we all know--but this thing we call "inch" can not be found in the real world. What is the definition of an abstract concept? Is there such a thing as a non-abstract concept? What I was trying to say is that some concepts refer to things that exist -- ex.: The concept "apple" refers to the real fruit that gows on real trees and these real apples can be seen, touched, and tasted. Have you ever seen, touched or tasted an "inch?" Obviously there is no such thing as an inch in reality. It refers to a measurement of length but it's only purpose is to measure actual things -- unless there is something to measure (something that has length as one of its attributes) the concept "inch" is absurd.

This all makes sense ... and I thank all those who have spent time on this problem ... but (you knew there had to be a but) I am still unsure about which specific attribute of "inch" has had its measurement omitted. Yes "inch" is a unit of meaure and it shares that characteristic with all units in the same catagory--namely those units used to measure length. So we know the CCD is "units used to measure length." What distinguishes an inch from a foot? I think the differentia is that an "inch" is a specific length that is different than a "foot," or any other unique unit used to measure length. I suppose you could say we are omitting all units of length that are not exactly an "inch" in length ... but isn't that the same as only including units that measure exactly an "inch?" All units that measure an "inch" in length are exactly the same -- they are all mental constructs (there is no concrete "inch"--there are concretes that are an inch long but no "inch" exists in reality) that, because they are exactly an inch are one and the same. That's why I think that the concept "inch" is a singular thing. There is only one of them, duplicated an infinate number of times in the minds of people.

Isn't it true that the concept "lenght" includes all lengths -- we know that length has some quantity but that quantity is not specified (length is the variable -- the specific measurement of length has been omitted). We do not form the concept "length" by omitting measurements of color, weight, temperature and other arbitrary and irrelevant attributes, we omit the essential measurement--that of lenght, i.e., the length is x number of inches, feet, miles, etc. We know that length exists in some quantity but the specific quantity is omitted. You make it sound as though we form concepts by eliminating all non-essential attributes. I think we only omit the specific measurements of the essential attributes. I would say, "the 'table' must have a horizontal surface (that is one of the essential attributes) but that surface can be of any size, of any shape, and of any color (the essential attribute has a variety of measurements)." You woulod say, "the 'table' is a table because it does not have the attribute of reason, it does not have the attribute of velocity, and it doeas not have the attribute of temperature--these are the measurements that have been omitted." I do not think that we form concepts by omitting all of the things that the concept is not. Instead we elliminate the specific measurements of the attributes that make it what it is. What is man? He is a rational animal--an animal that has the attribute of reason--reasoning ability in some quantity. but not a specific amount of reasoning ability--the measurement of reasoning ability has been omitted. It's the measurement of the essential attribute that has been elliminated. This method of measurement omission works in all cases that I can think of except when the concept's essential attribute is a specific measuremt--like the concept "inch." The concept inch has only one essential attribute and it is a specific measurement--that essential measurement can not be elliminated. Yes we can omit all kinds of irrelevant measurements, like rotational velocity, molecular weight, electrical current, etc. but they are meaningless omissions. Is man a man because he is not a cat, not a mouse, not an elephant, not a truck, not a mountain, not a spaceship, and not a brick? Or is he man because he IS an animal with some degree of rationality? I think the later. So it is not about what an inch in not, it is about what an inch IS. An inch is a specific lenght--a length of one inch (1/12 of a foot). I do not think that the concept inch is formed by omitting everything that it is not. I don't know if it's Platoism or not ... and even if it is that wouldn't bother me, so long as the answer I derive is correct. The more I think about it there is only a single inch and that same inch can be used over and over again anywhere in the universe. It is a man made unit of measure--an idea--a non-physical construct of the mind. How we form the concept "inch" is still not known to me but I do not think it is by omitting measurement. If someone can prove me wrong I will gladly change my mind, for no man is harmed by the truth, but he is harmed by his own ignorance and deception. So if someone can offer an explaination it will be highly appreciated.

So what you are saying is that the word "measurement" does not always mean measurement? If, to form some concepts, I omit something other than measurement, then I have not omitted a measurement in that specific instance. I think of measurement as the dimension, quantity, or capacity determined by measuring. I do not think of "measurement" as "a type of instrument used to measure" or "an object being measured." As far as where an object is when it is being measured (like the longitute, latitude measurement or country, city, etc.). I agree that location measurement (or variable) is being omitted (everything that exists must exist in some specific place at a specific time) ... but is that what she means by "measurement omission?" It seems like a rather arbitrary measurement to omit ... it's like omitting the fact the moon goes around the earth as part of the process of forming the concept "sand." I think the measurement that is being omitted must be a "variable attribute" (my words) and the attribute that is variable must be one that other concepts within the same class all share and you are acknowledging the fact that the difference between the various existents within that class is that variable. (Lets call it an essential variable attribute). Like "blue" represents all shades of blue but does represent any of the shades of red. Blue things share the essential variable attribute of blueness. All tables have a flat horizontal surface but the size of the surface varies--the flat horizontal surface is the essential variable attribute--it doesn't matter what country the table is in. The location of the table has been omitted but location is not an essential variable attribute of tables. The concept "inch" has only one essential attribute, that of length, but the length is not a variable. The length of all inches are exactly the same. Since "inch" is a concept and all concepts are formed through measurement omission there must be some other variable attribute that all inches have ... but I can not think what that attribute is. Can you? Could it be that there is only one inch? And if so how do we form concepts when they refer to a single thing?

Usage Note: Enormity is frequently used to refer simply to the property of being enormous, but many would prefer that enormousness (or a synonym such as immensity) be used for this general sense and that enormity be reserved for a property that evokes a negative moral judgment: Not until the war ended and journalists were able to enter Cambodia did the world really become aware of the enormity of Pol Pot's oppression. Fifty-nine percent of the Usage Panel rejects the use of enormity in the more general sense in the sentence At that point the engineers sat down to design an entirely new viaduct, apparently undaunted by the enormity of their task. This distinction between enormity and enormousness has not always existed historically, but nowadays many observe it. Writers who ignore it in phrases such as the enormity of the President's election victory or the enormity of her inheritance may find their words an unintended source of amusement. <Bold highlight added by RSalar> (Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company.)

I think I have a basic understanding of how measurement omission generally works in concept formation but there are some concepts, namely concepts of measurement, that measurement omission is impossible. How are concepts of measurement formed? By concepts of measurement I mean concepts such as: inch, yard, pound, ton, quart, gallon, etc. Take an inch for example. What measurement is omitted in the concept “inch?”

I would agree with that ... and the opposite--that a destructive quote is bad even if it comes from a good person. Why use a quote that you do not agree with? I think the Churchill quote is wrong and misleading and should not be promoted. It doesn't matter who said it, except that some people may think that because it came from Churchill it has greater significance and for that reason alone I think it should be disparaged. I personally do not understand why there is a need to be attaching random quotes to the postings on this site. Is there a reason for this practice?

It is possible for you to be conscious of something that does not exist in the physical world. (I know you want to know how but wait...) Recall some place that you have visited--make a mental picture of it. That picture exists in your mind but it does not have physical properties. Dreams, memories, mental pictures, ideas, thoughts, etc. do not exist outside of the mind--they exist only in the mind and have no physical properties. This is possible in the same way that things can exist in the real world. In other words I could ask you, "How is it possible that matter exists?" It just does! Consciousness is a primary irreducible fact in the same way that existence is a primary irreducible fact. It's difficult to understand how it is possible to be aware of something that has no physical properties, but it is very important to make the proper distinction between existence and consciousness because hypostatization is a common roadblock to understanding abstract concepts. For example, many people think that "rights" exist in nature. When they think they "have" rights they think that somehow rights exist out there in the real world. But in actuality the concept "rights" is a man-made idea--no one actually has them in the literal sense (like having a house, a car, or a boat, etc.). If you are interested in learning more about this "problem of universals" I would recommend visiting the Ayn Rand Bookstore and buying: "Two False Theories of Concepts" by Gary Hull. http://www.aynrandbookstore.com/