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

["Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Azamat,

Comments below,

-Rich

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper

EnglishLogicKernel.com

Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of AzamatAbdoullaev
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 7:46 AM
To: doug@xxxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology going offline

"An ontology of self-interest should include all needs..."

Ultimately, yes, but we have to start with simple examples and build on them to find more emergent truths that can be useful. 

This is two orthogonal things.

Needs, fundamental, psychological, spiritual, ethical, social, cultural,

necessary and sufficent conditions for human living.

Humans advance science, technology and industry to create more wealth, thus

to overcome social injustice and social ills prevalent today-hunger,

poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, diseases, wars, environment degradation,

and many other badnesses.  These problems still continue because of the

dominant economic and political self-interests, the main source of social

evils. The mainstream (unenlightened self-interest)

Whoa, the seven billion people on the planet have evolved because we all have a good grasp on our own self interest as we each see it, and in deep detail.  Consider a teenager learning how to get along with her peers in high school.  The amount of self positioning and self describing is huge!  She is very self interested, and is learning how to make deep decisions that will affect the rest of her life.  She then continues same through choosing relationships, having and raising children, and preparing for all manner of hardships and obstacles.  Each of us really does, IMHO, have a DEEP understanding of our self interest. 

insists that the persons

who act to further his self-interests ultimately serve the public interests.

Only politicians, lobbyists, propagandists, media reporters, and others who sell to the public try to construe their own self interests as in the public self interest.  Most of us want our family, friends, relatives and strangers to serve our self interests, but we aren't as well trained to be blatant about it. 

The "enlightened self-interest" opposes: the persons who act to further the

interests of others (or the interests of the group or groups to which they

belong), ultimately serve their own self-interests. A dilemma, a big social

quandary which mothered two polar types of human society: capitalism and

socialism.

Capitalists and socialists differ only (IMHO) in the particular way they construe their own self interests.  Capitalists (i.e. businessmen) believe that they can advance their own self interest by offering products and services (at a nice profit) to markets composed of people who have shown they will pay for such.  Socialists (i.e. rabble rousers) believe they can organize others to force their own self interests into being through mobs, IMHO.  I know that others will disagree; sorry for the honesty if it affects anyone negatively, but I stand by this belief. 

History shows that there are good people who help others (Jesus, Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Theresa, …) but they are so rare as to be handily noted. 

I believe these human issues are more actual than the talks about the microorganisms self-interests, like the pathogens are more egoistic, while

the harmless micro-organisms, as intestinal flora, look more altruistic creatures :).

Evolutionary theorists, like Adam Smithians before them, believe that altruism is based on shared genetic propensities that benefit the common gene pool.  Remember that all humans share more than 99 % of our genes, even 97% with chimpanzees and bonobos, so I think the altruistic model as common self interest works.  That is why I incorporated it into Use Case 1.  At the bacterial level, there is minimal conversation, but messages (Peircean signs, as JFS points out) are simplest at that level, and we can build on top of that once we have an ontological vocabulary for doing so. 

"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."

Your Worldview, Philosophy, Belief, Values, and Religion. Ultimately, the

scope and level of your knowledge. Since there are universal truths of

society to be recognized by any social movements. One of them: the lack of

social cohesion (material needs and conditions; order, safety and freedom;

social networks and interactions; social inclusion and integration;

equality, equity and life chances) is a principal reason of social

instability.

Azamat Abdoullaev

Agreed, but we have to start somewhere small to enable growth to these larger scale topics.  We can't start with the high level because it is too complex, and we will be debating again instead of modeling.  Lets start here, as JFS suggested, at the bacterial level and move upward from there so we can make some progress. 

-Rich

----- Original Message -----

From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 1:08 AM

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




> 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".

>

> 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.

>

> 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.

>

> -- doug f

>

>> 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    (01)