RE: [jboske] Re: Link on (Intensional) Masses

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

John:
> And Rosta scripsit:
> 
> > BTW, in case it's not clear, the reason why the distinction
> > doesn't really apply to things like Mr Single Dog is that
> > its manifestation lacks the property of being a single
> > dog: instead it is a very scattered collective of dogs 
> 
> I don't see why. Can't a Kind manifest in more than one place at the
> same time? If I have a depiction of a snake (generic) and so do you,
> isn't Mr. Depiction of Snake bi-located?

I need to capitalize Manifestation. x is a Manifestation of Mr Broda
if x = that part of the totality of spacetime that Instantiates
Mr Broda. Now, an Instantiation of Mr Broda must broda -- the
instantiation must have the property corresponding to the Kind.

The Manifestation of Mr Single Dog, then, is not in fact an
instance of Mr Single Dog. I'm in two minds about whether to
define Manifestation so that x is a Manifestation of y only
if x is an Instance of y. 

At any rate, the stuff that xorxes and I were calling Substance 
of Broda is equivalent to that which is both Manifestation and 
Instance of Mr Broda.

--And.