Part C; Object-oriented techniques See the comments on "But",I said,"when you discovered the marks on the snow and on the this text on pages branches,you did not yet know [the horse]Brownie.In a certain way these 168and169. marks were telling us about all horses,or at least about all horses of that kind. Should we not say then that the book of nature talks to us only in terms of essences,as taught by some very distinguished theologians?" "Not at all,my Dear Adso",replied the master.[..."The imprint in that place and at that time of day told me that at least one among all possible horses had passed there.So that I found myself half-way between the study of the concept of horse and the knowledge ofone individual horse.And in any case what I knew of the universal horse was given to me by the mark,which was singular.You could say that at that time I was held prisoner between the singularity of that mark and my ignorance,which took the very hazy form of a universal idea.If you see something afar,and do not understand what it is,you will satisfy yourself by defining it as a large body.Once you have come closer you will define it as being an animal,even if you do not yet know whether it is a horse or an ass.And finally,when it is closer,you will be able to say that it is a horse even ifyou do not know yet whether it is Brownie or Fanny.And only when you are at the right distance will you see that it is Brownie (in other words that horse and not another,however you decide to call it).And that will be the full knowledge,the intuition of the singular."[...] "Thus the ideas,which I had used before to imagine a horse which I had not seen yet,were pure signs,as were pure signs of the horse idea the imprint on the snow:and we use signs,and signs of signs,only when we lack the things." Umberto Eco,The Name of the Rose,Day One,TercePart C: Object-oriented techniques “But”, I said, “when you discovered the marks on the snow and on the branches, you did not yet know [the horse] Brownie. In a certain way these marks were telling us about all horses, or at least about all horses of that kind. Should we not say then that the book of nature talks to us only in terms of essences, as taught by some very distinguished theologians?” “Not at all, my Dear Adso”, replied the master. […] “The imprint in that place and at that time of day told me that at least one among all possible horses had passed there. So that I found myself half-way between the study of the concept of horse and the knowledge of one individual horse. And in any case what I knew of the universal horse was given to me by the mark, which was singular. You could say that at that time I was held prisoner between the singularity of that mark and my ignorance, which took the very hazy form of a universal idea. If you see something afar, and do not understand what it is, you will satisfy yourself by defining it as a large body. Once you have come closer you will define it as being an animal, even if you do not yet know whether it is a horse or an ass. And finally, when it is closer, you will be able to say that it is a horse even if you do not know yet whether it is Brownie or Fanny. And only when you are at the right distance will you see that it is Brownie (in other words that horse and not another, however you decide to call it). And that will be the full knowledge, the intuition of the singular.” […] “Thus the ideas, which I had used before to imagine a horse which I had not seen yet, were pure signs, as were pure signs of the horse idea the imprint on the snow: and we use signs, and signs of signs, only when we lack the things.” Umberto Eco, The Name of the Rose, Day One, Terce. See the comments on this text on pages 168 and 169