On Mon, August 8, 2011 16:40, AzamatAbdoullaev said:
> 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." (01)
> 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. (02)
An ontology of self-interest could be interesting. The weighting of
immediate gratification, long-term interest, and interest in a beneficial
environment (social, financial, physical, ...) could be used to describe
different mind-sets, politics, and religious orientations. Empathy and
limits of the groups to which varying degrees of empathy apply would
need to be modeled as well. (03)
> A self-organization, or spontaneous order appears without a central
> authority/coordinator imposing it's central planning. (04)
Certainly. However, greater order appears when groups of people set up
governments to secure rights and protect people from anti-social entities
(those who have no concern for rights and well being of others). (05)
Regulatory bodies form a major position in a government which protects
the population from potential harm due to ignoring safety, false
advertising, pollution, and other corrupt practices. (06)
> 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. (07)
Is a group of people getting together to choose policies an example of
self-organizing or not? What about if there are so many people that they
select representatives to debate among themselves and choose those
policies? (08)
> 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. (09)
Its perceived self-interest is a maximization of wealth and power. In
general, the concern is not about domineering common individuals -- they
probably rarely consider the effects of their policies on common
individuals. (010)
> 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. (011)
Agreed. (012)
-- doug f (013)
> 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 -----
> From: Rich Cooper
> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard
> Vines
> Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 4:25 PM
> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why most
> classificationsare fuzzy)
>
>
>
> 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
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (014)
=============================================================
doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org (015)
"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
============================================================= (016)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (017)
|