>Yes. Because univerals are empty, ultimately (through the forgetfulness of
> their origins) they are always tautological - abstract rules that have no
> particular context but are intuitively supposed to hold true in every
>particular context. The point being, that each universal must be
>*translated* (given content) by the individual / group/ . Of course, this
>implies that every universal is shattered in the translation which is
>where the "lack" enters. Once transgressed, the universal loses its
>universal quality and a hole in the particular appears - a missing link
>between the universal or the ground and the determination / particular.
>The "courage of convication" reinstalls the universal after its
>transgression which is what motivates the entire process of debates about
>universals, by condemning each "in the name of the universal" as
>particular substance.