It is necessary to mention that the expressions lā bi sharṭ...

It is necessary to mention that the expressions lā bi sharṭ (unconditioned) and bi sharṭ lā (negatively conditioned) are used by philosophers in a different context to distinguish the concept of genus and difference from the concept of matter and form. It is explained that when an existent in the external world is composed of matter and form, a concept is obtained from each of them, and it is possible that the essence of a thing is composed of genus and difference.

With this difference in mind, if we consider those concepts as genus and difference then one may be predicated of the other. For example, in the case of the genus and difference of man, it can be said that man is a ‘rational animal’. But if the concepts refer to matter and form, then one cannot be predicated of the other. For instance, one cannot predicate the spirit of the body.

In this regard it is said that what distinguishes the concept of genus and species from that of matter and form is that genus and difference are unconditioned ( lā bi sharṭ ) while matter and form are negatively conditioned ( bi sharṭ-e lā ). This terminology is not related to the previous one, and is simply a case of homonymity.

It is necessary bear in mind that the diversity and difference of the ‘respectivals of essence’ ( i‘tibārāt māhiyyah ) are merely mental, and it is clear from the title that they are respectival, and have no entified or objective source, and in lieu of them there are no entified existents, and even if the fundamentality of essence is established, there will not be in existence this multiplicity of whatnesses.

Natural Universals From the review of the different kinds of respectivals of essence, the definition of ‘natural universal’ may also be obtained, for this is the same as the divisible ( maqsamī ) respectival, the ‘unconditioned’ essence, in which there is no kind of restriction, not even that of being abstract and lacking accidents, nor that of objective existence.

It is called ‘universal’ because it is common among individuals, and it is called ‘natural’ to distinguish it from ‘logical universals’ and ‘intellectual universals’.

By the former is meant a universal which may have other accidental concepts in the mind, and by the latter, the `intellectual universal’ is meant the universal to which accidents are applied, and which is abstract, ‘negatively conditioned’, which is only realized in the realm of the intellect and which is the mental instance of the concept of a logical universal.