John (01)
Some cultures look at cyclic nature of time, especially on cosmic time
scales, and their languages (Sanskrit) interpret even destruction and
creation of universe as being cyclic and repeating processes. Time is
understood in terms of a wheel in motion and I understood usual construct in
arrow of time sense - as the track created by the wheel. (02)
On another note to Ronald - our current state (of mind - and to some extent
even collective current state!) is only transitory as it becomes past but
leans on future and acts on the scenarios presented by the future. Mind also
acts in dream and sleep states in addition to above. In the past texts were
the only ways to reconstruct our mental picture of what happened (past) even
though early languages started pictorially, but future generations will
reconstruct past more like virtual reality combining all media constructs
(sound, visual, text, hopefully logic based on math etc., and even embedded
interpretation such as transliteration and translations) available to enrich
the contexts of what might have happened (past). (03)
Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma)
313 204 1740 Mobile
drravisharma@xxxxxxxxx (04)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 1:27 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Looking forward at the past (05)
Ronald, (06)
The example of the Aymara language illustrates the Sapir-Whorf
claims about the very different ways that people with different
languages and cultures interpret the world. That example of the
different ways of viewing the "arrow of time" is a result of more
ingrained differences in the underlying world views. It's not just
a difference in a single metaphor about time, but in entire systems
of ontology or semiotics or Weltanschauung. (07)
RKS> ... these metaphors deflect our attention from the challenge
> of the fundamental question: how do we use pictures, language and
> other signs to construct the past, the future and distant things
> so that we can use them in the only world available to us, the
> here-and-now. (08)
I agree that those issues are very important. Unfortunately, we
have no direct methods of determining those semiotic processes
other than to look at the external signs, mostly language signs.
Brain scans are useful, but they are still far less detailed than
verbal reports. In fact, most brain scans are interpreted by
correlating them with verbal reports and behavior. (09)
RKS> Surely, any ontology (in either sense) cannot fully meet the
> needs of information systems engineering until it takes account
> of the people in whose present minds past and future necessarily
> reside, and how they arrive at their beliefs and place any trust
> in them. (010)
I would agree. But how can we "take account of the people" and
"how they arrive at their beliefs"? (011)
John (012)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (013)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (014)
|