|From:||FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Mon, 7 Feb 2011 21:51:34 +0000 (GMT)|
I believe this exchange of views concerns the topic of the concept of class, the paradox of set theory, as well as the fact that we always visualise in 2D and move towards the object (objectives) in a perpendicular fashion where we eventually reach a surface that we want to penetrate and we adjust our focus to have a chunk of reality that may be considered as one. Without changing our position (modify our relation to the object), however we do not have a whole picture, because we cannot see the boundaries of an object exisiting in “spacetime” – not in 2D nor in 3 or 4 Ds.
My reasons to see the subject in that frame are detailed in the attachment, should you bother to read it.
Class is concept derived by abstraction.doc
_________________________________________________________________ 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] Presentism etc, Rich Cooper|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] presentism, etc, John F. Sowa|
|Previous by Thread:||[ontolog-forum] Fw: Presentism etc, sean barker|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] presentism, etc, John F. Sowa|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|