Abstract - concrete


Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Abstract - concrete

  1. #1

    Abstract - concrete

    Following the discussion of Scr1pter's poem 'Now' in the Workshop, I came to realize that there are far more definitions and usages of both words. For me, and I am sure for others, it's sometimes hard to grasp.
    Especially since I am not a native speaker, I have the tendency to use a lot of words called 'abstract' by others, leaving me scratching my head.

    So, two quotes here from the 'Now' thread, especially TL Murphy's explanation is a good one. Although I am not sure I will never do it wrong anymore in the future. In red what for me is the most important in the quote.



    Quote Originally Posted by Scr1pter View Post
    In programming languages, an abstract type is a type in a nominative type system that cannot be instantiated directly; a type that is not abstract – which can be instantiated – is called a concrete type. Every instance of an abstract type is an instance of some concrete subtype.

    So what I was saying is that an Abstract class would be the base of any concrete class you may create to override methods created within the abstract class. Abstract classes that allow a override use the virtual keyword inside of the method declaration

    Code:
     // An abstract class with constructor 
     abstract class Base { 
         Base() { System.out.println("Base Constructor Called"); } 
         abstract void fun(); 
     } 
     class Derived extends Base { 
         Derived() { System.out.println("Derived Constructor Called"); } 
         void fun() { System.out.println("Derived fun() called"); } 
     } 
     class Main { 
         public static void main(String args[]) {  
            Derived d = new Derived(); 
         } 
     }
    Quote Originally Posted by TL Murphy View Post
    Just to clarify here, “abstract” and “concrete” have specific meanings when discussing poetry. They are part of the literary jargon, like “rhyme” and “meter” and “juxtaposition.” Poets and other literary types have endowed these words with conventions so that we can talk about poetry in a way that others can understand what we are saying. In poetry, and literature in general, “abstract” refers to ideas, i.e. concepts that cannot be detected by the senses like love, faith, soul, God, existence, transcendence. “Concrete” refers to anything that can be detected by the senses like stone, wind, shout, light, etc.: objects, sounds and sensations. Of course language changes and ideas evolve, and it is important to push the parameters of meaning constantly. So it is refreshing to question conventional meaning and even to challenge it. But talking about poetry is not the same as writing poetry and when we are talking about poetry we must be able to agree on what words mean. Otherwise we can’t talk about it. So “abstract” and “concrete” mean something else in the world of programming. It would be interesting to see a poem written about the world of programming that used “abstract” and “concrete” in ways that challenge our conventional thinking. But when we are talking about poetry, we need to use the language of poetry.

  2. #2

    Posted by Scr1pter
    Well I guess the definition of abstract could be different although my intention was to see if there were any likenesses. I have found that abstract poetry is also known as sound poetry and that the sound of words used matter more than the actual meaning of the words. Rhyming words are common and are often used descriptively rather than subjectively. Meaning a subject must already exist in order to be descriptive of it.
    So as far as likeness abstract seems to always relate to what already exists, and cannot exist by itself.
    When creating an object we use a concrete class which is derived from the abstract base class.
    A prototype can serve to present an idea without actually having full intended functionality.
    It is just the basis of the idea or subject. Which very much relates to the way abstract is used in poetry.



    Reply from TL Murphy:


    Sound poetry is sound poetry and not classified as “abstract.” It is closer to music or lyrics. It may be abstract in the conventional sense of the word, i.e. that it’s hard to pin meaning on it. But “abstract“ poetry is poetry or fragments of poetry that express intellectual “concepts” that cannot be seen, touched, smelled, felt or heard, as opposed to “concrete” poetry which is expressed through objects or sensations which present the reader with clear images. The difference is that the reader cannot visualize “love” or “hope” but the reader can visualize a kiss or a rose. We use the images in concrete poetry as metaphors to help the reader visualize intellectual concepts that are impossible to detect in the body. This is how we make poetry immediate, experiential and relevant as opposed to conceptual, ephemeral and... well... abstract.

  3. #3
    It took me quite a while to understand that sort of 'abstract'. That it points at concepts rather than tangible items. I do now,

    I don't agree with this 'abstract poetry is sound poetry' idea. It's just too far-fetched.

    Also this:
    [...] a subject must already exist in order to be descriptive [...]
    I don't agree, it's absolutely possible to describe in words or in text a yet non-existing thing, event, sound, or whatever. It's part of any creative mind.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
This website uses cookies
We use cookies to store session information to facilitate remembering your login information, to allow you to save website preferences, to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners.