Joshua et al., (01)
Those are good examples: (02)
> It seems the first attempts at defining the parameters of
> warrior behavior resulted in most of the agents fleeing the
> battle scene. Only after concern for personal safety was
> reduced to an appalling level could the battle animations
> actually proceed in a "realistic" fashion.
> To stretch the point a bit, what we might consider "understanding"
> vs pragmatics may also be a matter of scale. (03)
But the point I made earlier is that purpose and intention (and
the value judgments that determine the purpose and what is intended)
are the foundation for pragmatics -- at every level of detail and
The purely truth-oriented facts of logic can determine the
shade of pink of the rose or the number of casualties in battle.
But the value judgments that focus attention and determine the
purpose are the foundation for pragmatics at every level. (05)
The distinction between logic and pragmatics is very sharp: (06)
- If it's a factual question of the number of flower petals
or the number of bodies on the field, it's a matter of logic. (07)
- But if it's a value judgment that motivates the purpose
or intention, it's a matter of pragmatics. And it doesn't
matter whether that value judgment is aesthetic, moral, or
religious or how intense a feeling it generates, it still
belongs on the pragmatic side of the issue. (08)
The continuum lies on the pragmatic side: some values and the
emotions involved are much more important or stronger than others,
and they determine a higher priority for some purposes over others.
But as long as there is any degree of purpose or intention involved,
it is a matter of pragmatics. (09)
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 (011)