In thinking about the distinction between a concept (here considered "prelinguistic") and a word (a linguistic representation), it occurred to me that there are very few objects/beings which have a word/name for that one particular object/being. I don't have a name for the one particular table I am writing on right now (it is my Grandmother's white stone tile table with its ornate black wrought-iron grape vine frame).
The word "table" simultaneously refers to this particular instance of "table" and the generalized concept or category of "table". Perhaps one of the few examples of giving a word/name to a unique instance of a class/category of object/being/phenomenon is the practice of naming ourselves. We attempt to "sum up" the particularity of our children with a unique name. Despite this practice, some people have the same name and in some cultures, many, many people have the same name.
Occasionally we give our dwellings a specific name: I live in the "Crestwood", otherwise known as a "co-op":
Some people name their cars (here we have the "General Lee", from the Dukes of Hazzard TV show),
guitars (this is BB King's guitar, "Lucille"),
animals (these are my cats "Ipam" and "Katia"),
etc., but mostly these things are identified simply by the concept/category they fall into...
Perhaps...
...becoming aware of the particularity of an object/being means becoming more aware of its truth or interdependence or emptiness (using Buddhist terminology). But it is an emptiness, which is to say it is not nothing; it is a very specific collection (and that specificity is important) of attributes/history which are dependent and inseparable. Although the concept/category of the object/being is part of its individuality, we are often content to leave it at that.
In doing some of the seeing/drawing exercises in the book Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, it seemed to me that a spacious and quiet mind arose from tuning into the particular specifics of visual forms being perceived. These mental states are usually thought of as mutually exclusive, but perhaps when we attend to specifics accurately, we are automatically and naturally connecting with the general or larger truth of things.
Maybe we'd be more happy, caring, and compassionate if we could sense the particularity of every single tree/car/person/stone, such that we could give each one a unique name which expressed that particularity. Conversely, maybe we don't need to take ourselves so seriously when there are so many instances of our category. Just like we don't need to name every single tree that comes into the world, each of us is just another instance/example of the category "human being". Keeping these contradictory views simultaneously in mind seems like a good route...
