Hi Matthew,
Comments below,
-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 matthew lange
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011
12:59 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self
Interest Ontology going offline
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?
Yes, but
how? One consideration is that Maslow only dealt with single individuals, not
with pluralities of self interest in balanced opposition (or even in unbalanced
opposition). John Sowa suggested we consider biosemiotics, with bacteria as a
model, to prepare for higher level models, and perhaps the Maslow
considerations should be viewed in a similar vein.
At the
highest end, if I remember college psych, Maslow put the desire to belong to a
group, and the generative features of old age, when we try to add value to
others before we check out. Parenting, love, and other useful and desirable
traits we like to exercise and see in others could be part of this array of
values and behaviors, IMHO, but just how would we represent that?
It
appears that the group prefers to stay on the list, though I have my misgivings
about how we can discuss examples of opposing and (hopefully) balanced self
interests, so I am postponing the list as an offline topic for now. I will
include your email in the list in case it turns out to be necessary for future
discussions.
Thanks
for your thoughts,
-Rich
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