|From:||FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:41:31 +0000 (GMT)|
hello (sorry for my very bad english)
enaction=lot of relations (pro-action,action,reaction,retroaction,reretroaction with meta,metameta,and metametameta)(relation=verb=action="" is fractal by definition)
aspect=domain of enaction(domain=group=catégorie=part)
holon=knot of aspect(the sum of part is more than the part)(knot is made by endo-relation)(endo ~ auto)
finally in e-Matrix(my personnal project)
all are(shall be) made of relation
comments and critics are welcome
1. I maintain that the semantic primitives are objects, properties and relations with object as the starting point. (Check out “the meaning of Res menad”- an object, meaning a thing or something that obstructs your sight). 1.1They are the domain or content of the concept of reality. 1.2 An object cannot be separated from its qualities. 1.3 An object has no foundation without qualities. 1.4 By removing all the properties of an object, you destroy the object. 1.5 Objects seem to have greater autonomy than properties or relations. 1.6 I think that a holon is a narrower term than an object. I accept that a holon is simultaneously a whole and a part. Also that wholes and parts in an absolute sense do not exist anywhere. I accept that Koestler is right saying that holons exist simultaneously as self-contained wholes in relation to their sub-ordinate parts, and dependent parts when considered from the inverse direction.
2. Compare my claim with facts. What are facts? Objects, properties and relations in disguise.
3. We see/conceive the world in a spacetime continuum (which is not complete without the concept of motion (change)). (Space and time on their own have lesser autonomy than the spacetime continuum. Compare your part-whole point and synergy)
4. With object, property and relation spatial relations are revealed That is what we call reality. Even time is pictured as spatial relation.
5. Reality may be smaller or bigger Thus it is relative. “The more reality or existence an object has, the more attributes it is likely to have.” (Spinoza).
6. On relation we seem to differ. I am not familiar with enactment, http://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Organizational%20Communication/enactment_theory.doc/
so I have some homework to do
I hope this is enough for a start/spark.
_________________________________________________________________ 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 (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] PROF Swartz ON DEFINITIONS, Alex Shkotin|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] language vs logic - ambiguity and startingwithdefinitions, Pavithra|
|Previous by Thread:||[ontolog-forum] Re : ontolog-forum Digest, Vol 93, Issue 33, Bruno Frandemiche|
|Next by Thread:||[ontolog-forum] language vs logic ambiguity and starting with defiinitions, FERENC KOVACS|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|