By concepts as purely negative I mean that they are ideal or mental images of a sensual entity or logical realtionship. In this sense they are the negation or dialectical opposite of their referent.

Ah, I understand what you are saying now. Yet I would like to propose that concepts (while they are mental images) need not necessarily be the 'negation or dialectical opposite of their referent.' Could it not be that they are merely another form of said referent? Furthermore, what happens if there are numerous concepts which relate to the same referent? Are all these concepts the negation of that single referent? In this case that would mean more than one negation for one single referent - which seems out of balance...?

- August

Trivas:

If concepts had 'referents' they'd be singular designating expressions, and thus not concepts.

You can find the details at my site:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2003_01.htm

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2004.htm

Or here (but this is not an easy article):

http://www.ul.ie/%7Ephilos/vol4/index.html

And you are also confusing 'mental images' with linguistic expressions, -- or, rather, you equate the two without any proof.

Finally, you are confusing, too, concepts with relational expressions.

As I said, the gobbledygood found in Hegel is only 'acceptable' to sloppy 'thinkers' and logical know-nothings.

Ifeelyou: interesting comments. Thanks!

However, we have the capacity in western languages to express multivariate relations -- I gave a few examples earlier. So, we in the 'west' are not superglued to binary 'oppositions'. Indeed, we have many terms that express other sorts of relations male-female-hermaphrodite. Above, below, in the middle. Yes', 'No', 'Maybe'. And so on.

Yes, they are the mental form of their referent, but they aren't a property or intrinsic to them. They just name them, no? So yes, you find all kinds of name for the same thing.

agreed human sexuality studies professor gilbert herdt (in Third Sex, Third Gender: Beyond Sexual Dimorphism in Culture and History) even argued that the united states has, in the past, gone beyond the man-woman dichotomy; that we, in a very explicit and public way, recognized a third gender and have even had only one gender.

despite such, i still think that a great deal of western society views gender, and life at large, in either-or terms. for example, staying with gender, we as kids are raised as "boy" or "girl," and even if a child is born intersexed, parents must often face the decision to raise the kid as one or the other. furthermore, as mentioned above, look at how people that test the boundaries of binaries, such as man-woman, are treated. transgressing traditional gender comes at a big cost: marginalization, physical violence, verbal violence, familial disownment, difficulty finding employment, etc.

so, yes, i certainly agree with u that we have terms for other kinds of relations and ways of life, but i think its important we dont obscure the practical reality that using some of those terms, such as intersexed, and transgressing binaries comes at a big cost, with many risks that even put lives in danger.

Ifeelyou, once agaon, thankyou for that. I agree with what you have to say.

Trivas:

Thank you for once again confirming the suspicion of those here who think you are indeed the George W Bush of logic.