Having read your
paper, I like the way you formulated the problem to be solved in terms of
various groups. In particular your quote:
We use the term
?ontological? quite deliberately in that expanded information
meaning frameworks are
generated by people. Thus, people use their innate
and sense of being to
create relationships, to create meaning, and to solve problems.
meaning frameworks are
not generated by machines but through the use of
intelligence (Vines and Firestone, forthcoming).
This is an
interesting formulation, though I am not familiar with the examples from
Australian politics you use to illustrate the principles. But it seems
to me that self interest, widely distributed among the population, and often
at odds with the commons, that should drive the system instead of regulatory
Here in the
US, if you have been watching our
silly struggle over the fiscal state of the country, you can see demonstrated
the two or three major viewpoints to which all parties subscribe.
Republican, Democrat and Tea Party actors hew to only three major value
systems. That is like mapping a fourteen dimensional physics onto a two
dimensional paper substrate.
I think what is
missing is a full and adequate accounting of self interest.
Specifically, every American (Australian, Syrian, Brit, Frenchman, ?) has a
unique evaluation of the process. Jefferson anticipated compromise and balance, and did
not anticipate the conglomeration of self-interests into a few major
In an And/Or graph
(e.g., IDEF0: http://www.englishlogickernel.com/Patent-7-209-923-B1.pdf
figures 5 and 11A) if I use different heuristic valuation methods, I get
distinctly different preferred solution subtrees. Each person in any
group has unique values, and therefore the emergent set of heuristics is
plural in value systems. With present systems, the projection of
millions of value systems onto a two dimensional regulatory body loses the
knowledge needed to solve everybody?s problem. I think a valuation of
each individual?s needs ? the three hundred million US citizens, for example ?
is the missing ingredient of subjectivity, and without accounting for that
massive divergence, we are doomed to average out the noise of individuals in
seeking a single, choiceless, and history shows incompetent, solution to the
single individual?s problems.
We need to look at
multiple value structures, not just logic, in how knowledge is represented,
formulated, selected, interpreted and conveyed into social structures.
Economists like Milton Friedman, Somebody Hyek, Adam Smith and others taught
that self interest and individual choice is what makes the free market
work. Governments are the least free of markets, presently structured,
like ontologies, to represent only a single value structured solution to
problems formulated by a few special interests, not by widespread
representations of all citizens? interests.
It may be stretching
an analogy to say that political graphs are like the current state of
ontologies, but I do so anyway. If anyone still reading this has a
solution to that multiply valued, multiply choiced fantasy of mine, I would
love to hear more. But logic alone is simply misleading, and IMHO
inappropriate, as a solution to problems of groups of people.
individual transactions by individual choices and values is what makes the
free market work, as well as it does or doesn?t, and I have not seen another
system level method that even approaches the flexibility and evolving progress
that so consistently follows free market expressions of self interest.
Thanks for an
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard Vines
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 4:25
[ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why most classificationsare
Because I have followed a small number of the threads of this group over a
period and learned a number of things from doing this, I thought I might make
a small contribution back even though I am sure I am way out of my depth
RC: ??.., I doubt if I can contribute much
more, since I have a very strong conviction that subjective construction is
the missing ingredient in ontology.
JS: There are three important
issues that are worth discussing, but they should be kept distinct when we're
trying to analyze them: (1.) The technical question about how modal
logic is related to possible worlds and/or possible models of the world.
(2). The philosophy of science about the nature of physical laws, and the
criteria for accepting a hypothesis as a law. (3) The psychological and
sociological issues about how scientists and engineers do their work and reach
In this discussion crossing over ontology and
epistemic logic (and modalities), I am not sure why there is no reference to
the nature of ?evolutionary possibility?.
For me, there is a need to explicitly take into
account a temporal component to this analysis ?. that different types of
knowledge emerge through time.
I have puzzled over these matters for some time and
made a first attempt to link them in section 1.3 of first part of this
paper (the overarching topic being about regulatory systems not
epistemology or ontology). In thinking about this notion of ?evolutionary
possibility?, I was interested in exploring whether there might be merit in exploring a
synthesis between Pierce, Popper (and his idea of ?evolutionary epistemology?)
Wittgenstein and Peter Munz. Munz was the only student ever to study under
both Popper and Wittgenstein. It is clear from his book ?Beyond Wittgenstein?s
Poker?, Munz carried this as an unresolved burden for a good part of his life
and his book has been an attempt to make sense of this early experience in the
1940?s. I was very interested in some of his discussion about meaning making
within this context.
Subjective construction as ?a missing ingredient in
ontology? (in the broad sense of the word ontology) is very much alive and
well in the discourse of knowledge management and to some extent, the KM world
has recently been keen to draw upon Pierce?s notion of abductive reasoning to
support the trend towards the uptake of a theory of social constructivism.
Whilst I am sure this is a good thing, I think there is a long way to go
before prevailing views about KM stabilise ? it is still very much an emergent
To this extent, I have been very much
influenced by John?s advocacy for an ?epistemic cycle?. I think this has a lot
to offer for those with interests in KM theory and practice ? and thus I
referenced this in the piece referred to above.
This earlier piece on
support systems in research intensive enterprises also made an attempt to
integrate the impact of hierarchically complex systems and public knowledge
spaces into this mix. These two aspects have some relevance to this
discussion. ? particularly, this:
i.e. RC multiple viewers of the same sign, each
seeing it in distinct ways, and reaching distinct