In my opinion there are only tokens, performances... Better: only individuals. Now, if you want to speak of types, no problem, but these types would not be "universals" -entities. I prefer to speak of "models", "ways", "patterns", "tradicions", "usages", "costums", something inseparable of our actions... and these "models", "ways", "patterns", "tradicions", "usages", "costums" conform our practices but at the same time are conformed -modified, enriched- by our practices.

Creativity is the question!!! And in your explanation creativity is out: a token only represent -imitate, reproduce- the type. Is not a reproductor art contrary to art? Even when art is more o less a reproductor art, the artist cannot avoid his creativity.

To sum up: extrem nominalisme and a view of human beings like creative beings.

Antoni Defez

Hi, Raina Saijo,
Thanks for your e-mail and question; I will give you my answer in the nearest future.
Sincerely,
Thor Olav Olsen.
Doctor Philosophiae in Philosophy.

Hi again, Raina Saijo,
I have a doctoral degree in Philosophy from Tromsø, Norway: Doctor Philosophiae, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, 2000.
As I already have told you, I will come back to your question.
Sincerely,
Thor Olav Olsen.
Doctor Philosophia in Philosopy.

Hi, Raina Saijo,
This is a correction: My degree is Doctor Philosophiae in Philosophy, and not Doctor Philosophia in Philosopy.
Sincerely best,
Thor Olav Olsen.
Dr. Phil. in Philosophy.

Hi Reina Saijlo,
To talk about fictional characters as types, which tokens, isn't, in my mind, a stright forward question.
Let me explain. I will give two examples, both from Peer Gynt, written by the Norwegian Novelist Henrik Ibsen. In Peer Gynt we are confronted with the figur Per Gynt and the Farmer in the Priests Tale. I start with some few words of what Per Gynt, the figur, and after that I will take a look at the Farmer, as a figure.
It seems that is not pure fantasi to talk of the figur Peer Gynt as a dreamer, a lier, or as a person who doesn't take up life as a problem, which means as a problemata: A problemata is a thing that blocks your way forward; instead of doing something to get the things that blocks your way away, a typical dreamer, or a life lier, goes around the problen. In Norwegion: Gå utenom, sa Bøygen.
The Farmer stands in sharp contrast to Peer Gynt: He's a fighter, which means that he may loose in the beginning, and in the End he will acquire what he want. The point is this. The Farmer learn while he lives; Peer Gynt learns nothing.
What about the question of types(universals): It seems that Peer Gynt has a singular character and a Universal aspect; There is some humans around who have a to high evaluation of them self, or that that they are out of contact with reality. Peer Gynt is such a type. However, Peer Gynt refers to Norwegian circumstances, a particular Country in the World, and that means that is about some singular circumstances. My conclusion points in the direction that there exists singular Universals.
The Interpretation of the Farmer is basically unclear: Does he express a humble attitude towards life, or is he a looser, a coward? Each and everyone has to find out for himself.
My conclusion regarding how we shall interpretate the Farmer is that it depends on the question if it is possible to give one and only on precise meaning of his way of conducting himself through life.
Thor Olav Olsen.
Doctor Philosophiae in Philosophy.

Well, there are both type and token in my opinion. Of course, there are particular instances that make every moment or performance unique, but it is still a type though different token. No matter how many different chairs there are in the world, the shapes or colors might be only accidents; a chair is a type in its most general sense, the tokens are just confirmations of the existence of that type. Put it in analogy with the elements, hydrogen is a type-element whose instances are indefinetly particular tokens. Type-identity is important epistemologically, since if things were merely tokens then it wouldn't matter if a certain atom was composed of such and such protons. Token identity is about countability, it relies on particular instances but it doesn't create identity. One chair and another chair make two chairs, even though we say there are two tokens they are still counted as one singular type, otherwise there would be just two tokens, of what? 
My idea is simple, Type-identity and token-accountability. 

Best regards. 

Hi,
I have already written my answer.
Sincerely,
Thor Olav Olsen.
Doctor Philosophiae in Philosophy.