At wrote:
> The same applies to the bottom part of the
> "plant" called "roots". However, one step further and I write "the
> plant HAS roots". But can a plant own/possess? Is ownership/possession
> not a human characterestic?
>
> I am aware of two attempts to solve the problem of anthropomorphic
> possession which have to do with the logical entities, namely NO and
> EVERY. One possible solution is to insist that NO human can possess.
> However, it has often been tried in the history of humankind, usually
> for political or economical reasons. It failed dismally by leading to
> a degradation of humans subjected to it. The other possible solution
> is to assume that EVERY "thing", including any human, can posess. It
> also failed because of the complexity which it results into. A third
> possible solution is to resort to linguistic tricks, for example, to
> speak of "the roots of the plant" rather than "the plant HAS roots".
> The logical consequences of such linguistic tricks are monstrous.
Perhaps IF it was a trick. A plant consists of various parts: roots,
stem(s) and leaves. Thus the plant is the whole and the root is a part.
Part of the whole can be written as roots of the plant. Not a trick at
all. The original supposion that plant refered to only the part above the
ground was incorrect. When we see a portion of vegeatable matter that
prtrudes from the ground we call it a plant taking into account that we
are also refering to the roots. Stems and leaves on their own are twigs.
Regards
Maggi Linington
email: lngtn-mj@acaleph.vista.ac.za
--"Dr Maggi Linington" <lngtn-mj@acaleph.vista.ac.za>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>