An ontology of self-interest should include all needs, at the base and apex
of Maslow's hierarchy. I would also include Manfred Max-Neef's set of
"fundamental human needs", which overlaps Maslow's hierarchy. Max-Neef
includes qualities, things to have, actions, interactions, and settings
in his "Human Scale Development". (01)
On Thu, August 11, 2011 3:58, matthew lange said:
> 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. (02)
Merely dealing with survival needs will not provide the terminology
necessary to explain (or rationalize) human action. What are the
various trade-offs that cause some people to be libertarians, others to
be socialists, others to be progressives, others to be various flavors
of conservatives or liberals. The right would label the left (and itself)
differently than the left would. It would be interesting to explain this
using formal ontologies. (03)
-- doug f (04)
> 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
> (05)
=============================================================
doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org (06)
"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.
============================================================= (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|