RC: "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 bodies....I think what
is missing is a full and
adequate accounting of self
interest."
Egoism/self-interest/self-concern/self-centerness
as the concern
for your own welfare and desires, be it ethical,
psychological, rational or
enlightened, appears the cause of the issue you
mentioned. It's widely
believed that social orders are emerging
form local multiple interactions of self-interested
individuals
without resorting to any planning. A
self-organization, or
spontaneous order appears without a central
authority/coordinator imposing it's central
planning. The real
self-organizing emerges from bottom-up interactions,
as happens with the
self-organizing networks, small-world networks, or
scale-free networks,
limitless in size. What we see in the big politics
is not about
self-organizing, but about the top-down hierarchical
interactions or
interferences, reminding severely limited top-down
hierarchical networks, which
are not self-organizing.
So why
the free market economy is failing with its
"invisible hand" of
spontaneous order. A rather simple answer, the elite
also has its
self-interest, which is fully domineering over
common individuals. As a result,
the "invisible hand" disregards the
general interests of
the nation and society at large while at the same
time enriching the rich. As
we know from the statistics, the crisis makes the
rich much more richer and
the poor much more poor.
I have to
agree with N. Chomsky that this "hand" is not as
benevolent as
advertised; for: " It destroys community, the
environment, and human
values generally—and even the masters themselves,
which is why the
business classes have regularly called for state
intervention to protect them
from market forces": http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199303--.htm.
Azamat
Abdoullaev
----- Original Message -----
Sent:
Sunday, August 07,
2011 9:58 PM
Subject: Re:
[ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why
mostclassificationsare fuzzy)
Dear Richard,
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 and
meaning
frameworks are generated by
people. Thus, people use their innate intelligence
and sense of
being to create
relationships, to create meaning, and to solve
problems. Such
meaning
frameworks are not generated by
machines but through the use of human
interpretative
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
bodies.
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 threads.
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.
Negotiation of
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
interesting paper,
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich
Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich
AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9
4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
Hi
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 their conclusions.
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 domain.
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 knowledge
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
conclusions,
Cheers,
Richard
_________________________________________________________________
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