On Wednesday, September 17, 2008 2:23 PM, Matthew West wrote:
''What you present below is just another world view. I try hard not to tell
people they have to share
my world view. But in return I do not expect others to impose their world
view on me as if it was
obviously correct. I certainly do not accept the position stated below, but
acknowledge that others
may wish to do so. My reasons in this case are simply that it is more
complex than necessary.''
Dear Matthew,
Viewing your relaxed spirit, just some general thoughts for your peaceful
cogitation. Generally agree to your suggestion that any intelligent person
has sovereign rights for his particular worldviews. And nobody is allowed to
encroach on such individual rights, including me as well. Then I want
simply to share some deep concerns with the mind which respect.
Individuals are capable to construct worldviews, of all sorts and manner
and styles, models, outlooks, hypothesis, schemes, schemata, scripts, etc. Take
for example the wide-spread definition of (computing) ontology as ''a data model
that represents the relationships of a set of concepts within a domain'' [
Ontology
(computer science)]. Even inter-subjectively supported, isn't funny such a
particular wordlview for a person of reality like you?
Let me remind why the Economic Tsunami is certainly going to destroy the
global economy. Just because this Big Economic Crunch was caused
by particular worldviews: a now notorious group of NP prize
winners in economics who imposed a ''scheme'' of unwarranted
(''false'') mortgage securities costing no more no less but $ 500 trillion,
while the whole world GDP hardly comes to the tenth. Getting the award, these
people decided that their individual worldviews is something like an absolute
truth, although there is no softer science as economics.
I am sure that a scholar of your caliber must see the roots of things;
namely, why we need play the Great Game of Ontology. As all good games, it has
its ultimate goal - to unify all individual worldviews into one Global
WorldView, providing an ontological frame and semantic foundation for all
our specific meanings and senses and denotations and designations.
As an example, in OntoPaedia, an ontological universal encyclopedia, it is
ruled: ''No organization is allowed to issue securities without equivalent
assets.'' In contrary, no commercial entity will go for this, because there
is a particular but dominant to date model of current society: ''Capitalism
is Overcapitalization.'', what is well exploited by Shell as well (pun
intended)
IMHO, we need to esteem private views, but they turn out as the basic
reasons of crises, wars, and other social catastrophes, what demonstrated both
by historical evidences and by current global economy. To have a safeguard for
such global risks, we need to develop the most integrated theories about
the world, the social world inclusive, what can be given by Ontology, the
science of the world.
Sorry for this gloom picture, consider it as a transient reality.
Next time when you feel desire for the true foreign climes, cordially
invite you to the Med Paradise, the legendary island of Cyprus, to visit the
Goddess of Love and Beauty in Paphos, presented with my humble
residence.
Enjoy your time,
Azamat