Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology going offline

[matthew lange <mclange@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I follow the conversation of a self-interest ontology, with great self interest.  I would be happy to be included in its continued discourse, but would be even more delighted if the ontology focused on lower levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, in terms of survival--with special attention aimed at characterizing fitness as composed by a person's trajectory toward desired metabolic, physical, emotional, cognitive  and ??? phenotypes.

Does this sound doable?

Best,

matthew

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Rich Cooper <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dear John,

I agree; ontology of self interest should be part
of the list topic catalog, however, examples,
including political ones, are needed to illustrate
points in self interest.  For example, we four
have divergent viewpoints on nearly every
political issue we raised in the forum, and I
don't see how we can avoid such examples in the
future.  So the problem remains; many people
simply can't discuss political issues (or other
self interest issues) that impinge on their self
worth.  That is what I regard as the problem we
had on the list.

If you have suggestions about how to do that
without upsetting people like Chris Menzel, I
would be happy to entertain it.  But it wasn't
ONLY Chris, at least a couple of others preferred
to avoid it.

Or maybe we can convince Peter to split off a
second list that relates to self interest
specifically - that would be easier anyway than
having political (or other self-interest) issues
discussed in an open forum where people get upset.
I have no desire to be involved in flames or name
calling, and would prefer that we discuss it in a
way that doesn't create the opportunity for such.


But if you believe we can discuss it without
getting into politics (I remain unconvinced still)
I am game to try it a bit more.

How do the other two of us feel about this?
Should we go back to the list, or is it too
problematic to do so.

-Rich

Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2

-----Original Message-----
From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 5:14 PM
To: Rich Cooper
Cc: '[ontolog-forum] '; AzamatAbdoullaev; doug
foxvog
Subject: Re: Self Interest Ontology going offline

Rich,

There is nothing wrong about an ontology that
includes concepts
such as SelfInterest.  That would be an important
part of any
ontology that includes purposive action of any
kind.

The complaints were about political issues, which
don't belong
on this forum.

As I said, the issues about self interest for
humans belong
to the issue of self interest for any living
things, and it
should be part of the same ontology.  That is
certainly
a topic for Ontolog Forum.

John



_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)