As Chris Menzel observed, some points in your note are questionable.
But I certainly believe that point #2 is very important: (02)
> Here are two goals:
> (1) To get everybody to agree on any sort of upper ontology, or on
> any parts thereof, or even on the absolute sanctity of FOL.
> (2) To figure out how the game can be played without excluding
> anybody who doesn't buy into what the dominant cultures believe.
> I have sensed a lot more emphasis on (1) than on (2). Personally, I
> think the goals implicit in (1) would thrive better in an environment
> that heavily emphasizes (2). (03)
I believe that ontology is very much an empirical science and that
scientists would never dream of *forcing* agreement on everybody.
Consensus in science is only achieved after long periods of dispute,
in which contending factions do their best to establish their own case. (04)
As for the "sanctity" of FOL, I don't know anybody who ever claimed
anything of the sort. Common Logic is intended to be a useful tool
that includes many popular languages as subsets. Adopting CL as a
tool is an useful step beyond advocating more restricted versions.
In that sense, it is more compatible with #2. (05)
But even the developers who contributed the most to CL acknowledge
that at least one extension is necessary to support metalanguage.
That is the version called IKL. (06)
Even then, nobody claims that is the end of the matter. (07)
Fundamental principle: FOL is *not* sacred. But anyone who doesn't
understand at least FOL has no clue what logic means. (08)
As a quick tutorial on many related issues, see (09)
Tutorial on Math and Logic (010)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (012)