Page History

SCANNED PDF

I can only wonder whether there isn't a close connection somehow between (1) my explanation of how a transcendental property can be the property of an ordinary, nontranscendental property; and (2) Hartshorne's explanation of how, notwithstanding the interdependence or symmetry of ultimate contrasts, there is an underlying one-way dependence or asymmetry between them.

...

I wish I could be clearer than I am about just why these two explanations seem to be somehow closely connected. But, as it is, the only reason that occurs to me is that, although transcendental properties and ordinary properties are both properties and, as such, abstracts, the first are more abstract than the second, even as the second are less abstract, or more concrete, than the first. Whether or not this is a relevant reason, however – andhowever—and, in point of fact, whether or not there is even anything requiring to be explained! – continues —continues to elude me.

5 October 2004