On Tue, August 9, 2011 16:32, Azamat Abdoullaev said:
> Thanks, Doug,
> for very interesting comments. See my comments as below.
> Azamat
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 5:30 PM
>> 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. (03)
> AA: It is. But first one in need to decide the nature and status. (04)
Do you mean decide what concepts are in the ontology? Of course.
One would want to separate the definitional ontology of terms from
the various theories about the terms, and both of them from knowledge
bases describing various actual (or possible) situations. (05)
Different microtheories would encompass the various philosophies. Each
would have a set of rules to govern interactions. One could model
criminals, libertarians, neo-conservatives, neo-liberals, progressives,
Social Democrats, various strands of Marxists, Adam Smithians, etc. (06)
> If its all
> socially constructed things or elements of ontological reality of human
> beings. If such concepts as self-interests or national interests are
> historically and socially contingent or intangible social facts, external
> to the individual or nation.. (07)
The contingencies could be modeled in the appropriate knowledge bases. (08)
> Empathy and limits of the groups to which varying degrees of empathy apply
> would need to be modeled as well. (09)
> AA: As you remember, A. Smith started from considering Sympathy in the
> Theory of Moral Sentiments, introducing the conroversary "invisible hand"
> as:
> ... In spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity, though they mean
> only their own conveniency, though the sole end which they propose ... be
> the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires, they divide
> with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an
> invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries
> of life, which would have been made,
> had the earth been divided into equal portions among
> all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it,
> advance the interest of the society." (010)
The first part of that last sentence had little relationship to the actual
situation in the mid-18th Century (since many people died due to the lack
of the "necessaries" of life), and probably less so today (regarding the
advancement of the interests of society). (011)
I don't consider radiation spreading over countries, dead zones in bodies
of water, millions of foreclosures, oil pouring into oceans, food-borne
diseases due to stacks of chickens excreting on those in cages below them,
antibiotics losing their effectiveness because of massive distribution
of them to livestock held in unsanitary conditions, foods loaded with
substances that don't naturally occur in foods, massive global climate
disruption, acid rain, the fastest extinction rate since the end of
the dinosaurs, sweatshops, and pollution in general to advance the
interest of society. (012)
All the above happen as a result of under-regulated actions by
companies which consider their own short-term interests above the
interests of society. (013)
>>> A self-organization, or spontaneous order appears without a central
>>> authority/coordinator imposing it's central planning. (014)
>> 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). (015)
>> 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. (016)
> AA: We need to recognize that most corrupt practices come from the
> regulatory bodies, destroying the spontaneous orders in society. (017)
I would strongly disagree. (018)
It's true that many regulatory bodies have been corrupted by bribes
and sometimes by the appointment of representatives of the very corrupt
industries being regulated to be members of the body. But the corruption
in such cases initially comes from the regulatees not the regulators. It
is true that in some countries, regulators require bribes before they
grant permits, but in the "First World", that is not nearly as frequent
as it was a century ago. (019)
>>> 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. (020)
>> 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? (021)
> AA: Its a self-organizaton as far as its the multiple bottom-up
> interactions
> of any number of self-interested and self-commanded individuals, where
> order/structure appears without any central authority or coordination.
> In nature, the self-organizing, utilizing non-linear causality and
> multiple
> individual interactions, can lead to extremely complex spatio-temporal
> dynamic structures and patterns. (022)
Sure. This can lead to pecking orders, an alpha male who drives out all
other adult males and/or becomes the primary or sole mate of the females
in the group, the abandoning of weak or sick members of the group, and
other "law of the jungle" structures. These are not necessarily the
best types of society. (023)
-- doug f (024)
>>> 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. (025)
>> 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. (026)
>>> 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. (027)
>> Agreed.
>>
>> -- doug f
>>
>>> 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, (028)
>>> Cheers, (029)
>>> Richard (030)
>> =============================================================
>> doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org (031)
=============================================================
doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org (032)
"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.
============================================================= (033)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (034)
|