They are all nouns. Had the word "put" or "friendly" appeared (for example), your puzzle would have been more difficult.

Ok, I guess I should say the concepts themselves and not the parts of speech they belong to, though that is correct. Add in any adjectives you want in front of them.. I like your suggestion of friendly in front of bear attacks.. "Oh, don't mind the grizzlies; they're just prone to your local friendly bear attack".

They're all mentioned in a work entitled "Where God went wrong" which fell through a black hole in 3016 and emerged in Peterborough in 1936 only to lay hidden beneath a discarded Ford Model T until a recent land reclamation project? As good as any other answer!

They are all things I didn't eat for breakfast.

Some may say bread is a technology..yeast, baking and all. Also, it is composed of physical properties and chemical molecules.. So you indeed did eat some of those..

Philosophically speaking, what do bear attacks, anatomy, chemistry, physics, office work, aliens, foraging societies, and technology have in common? — schopenhauer1

They are all lesser truths which can be viewed either contexts or contents in different situations. A statistic of one being an oxymoron is an example of how content and contexts exchange identities in lesser truths. There are many lesser truths and, then, there is the One Greater Truth that without the truth nothing makes sense!

I didn't have breakfast.

Bear attacks are not good for your anatomy, but you can use weapons whose existence rely on advances in chemistry and physics to protect yourself from them.

However this produces office work for the staff in the National Parks, who would rather see illegal aliens dying than the rapid decline of bears. Even though they are still wilderness areas foraging societies have also disappeared form National Parks, due to the rise of weapons technology .

All eight terms are collectivities (like, all the understandings of physics, all the incidences of bear attacks, all the aliens occupying high office in human governments, and the like).

the National Parks, who would rather see illegal aliens dying than the rapid decline of bears. — John

Sound ecology. Actually, if the bears would eat more illegal aliens, the bears would flourish. And, BTW, bear-eaten-illegal-aliens would not be available to be counted, so less office work. Win, win, win.

And whose fault is that?

They are all topics that Trump is incapable of discussing intelligently. But from what I have seen of the guy, your list is only about 0.001 percent complete.

How about: they are all human-brain-generated conceptualizations, that is, human-brain ways of seeing things, of understanding our interactions with the world by separating out certain features and organizing them into thought-units?

Or maybe just last night's Jeopardy categories?

It reminds me of the famous list that Foucault references at the beginning of his book, The Order of Things, which I encountered in a post-grad tutorial, derived from some possibly fictional Chinese imperial source:

• The list divides all animals into 14 categories:
  
  * Those that belong to the emperor
  * Embalmed ones
  * Those that are trained
  * Sucking pigs
  * Mermaids (or Sirens)
  * Fabulous ones
  * Stray dogs
  * Those that are included in this classification
  * Those that tremble as if they were mad
  * Innumerable ones
  * Those drawn with a very fine camel hair brush
  * Et cetera
  * Those that have just broken the flower vase
  * Those that, at a distance, resemble flies

I particularly like the last of these.

welcome BG!

Philosophically speaking, what do bear attacks, anatomy, chemistry, physics, office work, aliens, foraging societies, and technology have in common? — schopenhauer1

They are all strings of symbols that refer to (mean) something other than the symbols themselves. What they refer to is some external process to the mind. The organization of the symbols and the establishment of the correlation of the symbols to their external process is a process of the mind.

They are all lesser truths which can be viewed either contexts or contents in different situations. A statistic of one being an oxymoron is an example of how content and contexts exchange identities in lesser truths. There are many lesser truths and, then, there is the One Greater Truth that without the truth nothing makes sense! — wuliheron

Can you explain this further..you may be getting it?

Bear attacks are not good for your anatomy, but you can use weapons whose existence rely on advances in chemistry and physics to protect yourself from them.

However this produces office work for the staff in the National Parks, who would rather see illegal aliens dying than the rapid decline of bears. Even though they are still wilderness areas foraging societies have also disappeared form National Parks, due to the rise of weapons technology . — John

I like the story.

All eight terms are collectivities (like, all the understandings of physics, all the incidences of bear attacks, all the aliens occupying high office in human governments, and the like). — Bitter Crank

Sound ecology. Actually, if the bears would eat more illegal aliens, the bears would flourish. And, BTW, bear-eaten-illegal-aliens would not be available to be counted, so less office work. Win, win, win. — Bitter Crank

Who would have thought bear attacks are the solutions to our political problems.

How about: they are all human-brain-generated conceptualizations, that is, human-brain ways of seeing things, of understanding our interactions with the world by separating out certain features and organizing them into thought-units? — Brainglitch

I like this one.. What is the underlying message here? The basic dichotomy between human experience and the "thing-in-itself"? That truth cannot be conveyed in language, but only human-biased expression that makes sense to us because it is how our minds are structured? It works us, so it works.. but we are simply self-contained conceptual machines that are not beyond our own linguistic programming?

They are all strings of symbols that refer to (mean) something other than the symbols themselves. What they refer to is some external process to the mind. The organization of the symbols and the establishment of the correlation of the symbols to their external process is a process of the mind. — Harry Hindu

Yes, my response is pretty much the same as brainglitch.

Indeed, how things can be classified can change the context of how the phenomena is viewed.

They're all mentioned in a work entitled "Where God went wrong" which fell through a black hole in 3016 and emerged in Peterborough in 1936 only to lay hidden beneath a discarded Ford Model T until a recent land reclamation project? As good as any other answer! — Barry Etheridge

Combine this with John's story.

Greater truths progressively reveal themselves within the unfolding context of our lives. We might assume the earth is flat, but a photograph of it from orbit can change our mind not because the contents of our assumptions changed, but because the context from which we view them has changed. Normally people of statistics as a context and the number one as merely content, but a statistic of one is an oxymoron because both are lesser truths to the One Greater Truth that the context of our unfolding truth determines what we perceive and whether it makes any sense whatsoever.

Related to this post, perhaps the concepts in the OP are supposed to show different levels of abstraction. At what point are abstractions real? Are bear attacks real, or is it the bear harming a human real? Or is it the bear is simply moving at a particular time and space? Context is key. Are all events ontologically equal? Are all abstractions ontologically equal?

Also perhaps the OP was trying to convey the almost absurd amount of contexts one can find themselves in. Being involved with a bear attack, being part of a foraging society, being a molecule doing its thing, they are a wide set of phenomena with so many different contexts and levels of being. Are they at all able to relate or are they a part of their own little sphere of ontological being?

And whose fault is that? — Bitter Crank

Your mama's.

Related to this post, perhaps the concepts in the OP are supposed to show different levels of abstraction. At what point are abstractions real? Are bear attacks real, or is it the bear harming a human real? Or is it the bear is simply moving at a particular time and space? Context is key. Are all events ontologically equal? Are all abstractions ontologically equal?

Also perhaps the OP was trying to convey the almost absurd amount of contexts one can find themselves in. Being involved with a bear attack, being part of a foraging society, being a molecule doing its thing, they are a wide set of phenomena with so many different contexts and levels of being. Are they at all able to relate or are they a part of their own little sphere of ontological being? — schopenhauer1

What is a shadow in a well lit room becomes a faint blob of light in the dark because there is no clear dividing line between any context and its contents which can be considered yin and yang or indivisible complimentary-opposites or what some prefer to call particle-wave duality. Similarly, reality without dreams becomes just somebody's nightmare and dreams without reality are just a contradiction. For me this is literally true explaining why its impossible to live without dreaming and, for example, if you stay awake long enough you will merely hallucinate.

Physically, what it means is everything is metaphorical rather than metaphysical just as the evidence in quantum mechanics has asserted since Bell's Inequality Theorem. My own belief it is represents a recursion in the law of identity meaning we ultimately have to take everything on faith including our own free will and awareness. In more abstract philosophical terms, it means ontology can be considered just an epistemological idea and epistemology can be considered to be derived from ontology because a context without significant content is an oxymoron just like a statistic of one.

Philosophically speaking, what do bear attacks, anatomy, chemistry, physics, office work, aliens, foraging societies, and technology have in common? — schopenhauer1

They can all be predicated upon, i.e. they are subjects (nouns) and thus metaphysically speaking substances, events, processes, or whatever floats your metaphysical boat.

The freedom that evolves in a hierarchical, stable environment results in a wide diversity of things. All of them are connected by the fact that they exist and produce entropy.

What is the underlying message here? The basic dichotomy between human experience and the "thing-in-itself"? That truth cannot be conveyed in language, but only human-biased expression that makes sense to us because it is how our minds are structured?
It works us, so it works.

Pretty much.

What we convey via language such as you've listed are human-brain constructs. The notion of a thing-in-itself is itself such a construct, a way of conceiving and speaking about some aspect of an assumed external reality.

I don't do "truth" in any sense other than as conditional epistemic judgment about propositional statements. So, for me to say that a given statement is true is to say only that it satisfies whatever epistemic standards I deem appropriate for that particular statement in the given context.

... but we are simply self-contained conceptual machines that are not beyond our own linguistic programming?

This way I see it is that we are not self-contained, but rather we generate concepts from our interactions with the world, but these concepts are constrained by our particular humansystem kinds of interactions. We cannot really even conceive of what it is like to be a bat, or a lion, precisely because what it is like to be a certain creature requires experiencing the same kinds of interactions with the world that that creature experiences, in just the way that creature experiences them.

I see language not only as expressing, but alao as informing and contributing to the construction of, our conceptualizations.

I see language not only as expressing, but alao as informing and contributing to the construction of, our conceptualizations. — Brainglitch

Agreed..