John wrote"
AA> Mao said: "Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools
>> of thought contend is the policy for promoting progress in the arts
>> and the sciences ...".
>
> That's a good slogan. But there's a big difference between actions
> and slogans. Remember that about 40 years ago, Mao let loose the
> Red Guards, who tried to destroy the "flowers" (books, art work,
> and scholars) of several millennia of Chinese arts and sciences. (01)
That's right, John. (02)
For the sake of historical truth, Mao is still numbered among the most
important figures of the modern world history. The reason of his
socio-political programs, as Cultural Revolution, was a partial political
ontology, Legalism, one of Hundred School of Thought, and the desire to
model the first Chinese Emperor, Qin. The legalistic ontology postulates
that humans are basically evil, and good society comes from a set of laws
and regulations and totalitarian bureaucracy. Reading and scholarship are
asocial, while farming and weaving are the means to correct humans. A
comprehensive system of laws, administration techniques, position and power,
military activities and economic expansion are the only means to a just
prosperous society. (03)
As for RHM, he has an honest open mind with sincere intentions to move
things. Nowadays, it is not easy to find somebody seeking not monetary
profit but just the pride of accomplishment. (04)
His generall terminology is not a big problem, when giving a proper
interpretation. Also, his research is not any load to the public, unlike
those eating the public funds without knowing what they are to deliver. Here
is a 'rationale' i met on the research page of one such project costing Euro
14 m: (05)
[Most of the existing practices for the development of ontologies focus on a
single ontology, on a global consistency of such an ontology, and, in
principle, on a linear development. This is very restrictive- it is as if we
all communicated in a single language and completely disregarded our
cultural or historical specifics. Single ontology means single viewpoint on
the problems, situations and solutions. If in our everyday life we use many
different viewpoints, why can't designers of semantic applications and
engineers developing knowledge models do the same? In NeOn, we see several
dimensions, in which the existing single-ontology style of work need to be
enriched]. (06)
Which objective the whole project is aimed for: arguing for the single
ontology or agaist it? That's a real puzzle, not Chinese puzzle. I wish to
be mistaken, but it sounds as the folks don't know that they don't know what
they are talking about and doing. I am afraid that many of these people are
among (ontology) reviewers, passing judgments on other projects. That's a
real harm. (07)
Azamat
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 4:26 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] semantics of the mKR language (08)
> Azamat,
>
> I was trying to point out that there are many flowers blooming
> in the context fields, but most of them have not been adequately
> identified, analyzed, defined, and classified.
>
> AA> John wrote:
>
> JFS> The way you [RHM] use it in mKR falls roughly in the ballpark
>> of various theories, but I and many other people who subscribe to
>> this forum believe that your discussions about it are so vague that
>> it doesn't come close to being considered an even marginally useful
>> "theory".
>
> What I was saying is that just adding an at-phrase that represents
> some undefined "view" does not constitute a theory. Everybody
> knows that different people have different views, and those views
> are important for interpreting what they say.
>
> Merely acknowledging that fact does not add to our knowledge about
> context, and claiming that mKR has a theory of context because of
> its "at view" phrase is misleading, confusing, or false advertising.
>
> AA> Mao said: "Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools
>> of thought contend is the policy for promoting progress in the arts
>> and the sciences ...".
>
> That's a good slogan. But there's a big difference between actions
> and slogans. Remember that about 40 years ago, Mao let loose the
> Red Guards, who tried to destroy the "flowers" (books, art work,
> and scholars) of several millennia of Chinese arts and sciences.
>
> I don't believe that mKR poses a threat to the arts and sciences,
> but I was suggesting that Dick might make a more useful contribution
> if he tried to clarify his claims about context.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (09)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (010)
|