I received a serious comment http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3420203433392477201&postID=3541747986205695351
which had point of disagreement too. Thanks to the guy.
Atlachinolli wrote
"However, I must disagree with you in one point. As I see it, abstraction is not dependable on who perceives it. I believe that abstraction is the first level of interpretation, the primitive one, where all perception join (of course, I'm talking here of human perception). I believe that reaching the point of abstraction (and I don't mean the correct one, but THE ONE) leads to a well-design environment and thus a good agreement point to start the various branches of interpretation derived from it ... just like we do with the abstraction of universal energy and the "encapsulation" in material object."
He believes that Abstraction is independent of viewer's perspective.
I felt brilliance in the comment.I was behind it for a couple of days. I experienced difficulty analysing the argument. It appeared to be true. It helped me understanding my own faults. Though I believe Abstraction is dependent on viewer's perspective, I should admit the mistake I made earlier by saying that abstraction is inherent in objects. It was a mistake!! Abstraction exists in nature as a concept. But what is inherent in an object is something else-The Essence. It does not vary (Absoluteness) but abstraction varies. Actually an object can have infinite number of abstractions. Abstraction is an element of Object Orientation. It can't be absolute.It is about how we perceive!
Moreover works of giants like Booch, consider Abstraction as Viewer Dependent -Though It can't be blindly taken just because an expert like Booch said; History of Science has seen fall of giants and theories.
I have changed some of my perceptions about Object Orientation. I should not glorify it as a philosophy anymore, I feel.
This one was just my primary impression.
I know, this description is not enough. I will address the issue in my next post, of course.
