Hi All, (01)
As I follow this discussion for a while now I feel almost like I am about to
interupt a private conversation. But I am going to do that anyway! I am an
engineer - not a scientist or phylosopher, but I am very interested in this
subject. Here are my 50 cents, anyway: (02)
It appears to me that this discussion started from the need to have a common
ground that is more solid than one afforded by established processes. It is
clear from everything said so far that there is no way to establish a universal
ground, even when all efforts are made to remove ambiguities, such as the case
with mathematics. Perhaps it is what Pifagor (or was it someone else?) meant
when he said something like "... give me a ground and I will overturn the
World". SO what we should be looking for is at best a temporary grounding of
our ideas and efforts. This is what Kuhn's paradigm is all about.
So the question should be (correct me if I am wrong): what are the mechanisms
available to us for better grounding. Now I really sound like an engineer.
I this was a question discussed here all along, then I appollogize for stating
the obvious. (03)
Clearly - ontology and language are parts of any such mechanism, and the logic
must make it parts fit and do the work, which in my mind is to server some
purpose. Was it Wittgenstein who said that language is the use? I found this
book about Wittgenstein with the name pointing in the same direction
"Language and Information: ?Back to the Rough Ground!"
>From: Rob Freeman [mailto:lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 09:19 AM
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] What words mean
>On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Sharma, Ravi <Ravi.Sharma@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> In my professional thinking, science - commonly defined as search for
>> truth - is only local as we learn and discover that reality is ever
>> changing, both as phenomena and also as metaphysics and on top of that
>> also due to new math, stat and other advances that help you refine
>Yes, I think it is "local". And not just because things are always
>changing. I think there is an aspect of perspective to "meaning", and
>by the nature of perspective things cannot be seen from all ways at
>> On top of that what we think two scientists have "Agreed-On" are only
>> "partially intersecting spheres" as the understanding of phenomena or
>> objects in their respective perceived worlds are not necessarily totally
>I agree. Also because their experiences themselves will differ. (I'm
>not sure if you're saying this too.)
>The extent to which two people can understand each other will in very
>large extent be limited to the extent they share common experiences.
>I think "meaning" is an organization of experience, a kind of
>perspective, and if you don't have the same experiences, you can't
>organize them the same way.
>Kuhn calls this set of common experiences (perhaps even more than a
>given perspective of it) a "paradigm".
>> Please also refer to my earlier observations on PICTURE THEORY OF THEORY
>> MEANING and Late Prof. Norwood Hanson of Yale.
>On the basis of a quick google Hanson's ideas looks good. Thanks for that.
>Note also Wittgenstein had a picture theory of meaning. He arrived at
>it when he was thinking about the nature of logic.
>At a quick gloss, from memory: Russell was elaborating maths in terms
>of logic, and Wittgenstein was supposed to figure out what logic was.
>Wittgenstein turned it around and decided there was lots of stuff that
>logic didn't cover, and meaning was basically pictures.
>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
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 (06)