I was hoping that in all of the discussion about OOR that we have at
least arrived at the point where there is a sense of the metadata
that would be carried by the OOR for each ontology stored in the
repo.
It seems to me that one of the way to scope an ontology on "self
Interets" would be to agree on the metadata since we still seem to
be wandering around the terms.
I have never seen an ontology built so I am anxious to see how it is
done by the experts.
- deciding on what terms to define
- constructing a consensus around the definition of a term
- building the actual definitions in one or more languages
I am hoping that it will be very instructive.
The metatdata should be the least contentious part of the process.
Ron
On 19/08/2011 4:00 PM, AzamatAbdoullaev wrote:
On Thursday, August 18, 2011 10:19 PM Ron Weeler wrote: "Is
anyone actually interested in creating a Self Interest Ontology?
If so, can someone propose a set of metadata that might describe
this proposed ontology."
Better, as a tag cloud as of the Web 2.0. Or, even as the
knowledge tags with descriptions, categorizations,
classifications, hyperlinks, and hyperdata with semantics, as
initiated by Collaborative Search Engines like Jumper 2.0.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, August 15,
2011 10:41 PM
Subject: Re:
[ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology going offline
The topic indeed
needs more focusing and concentration but in the context of
ontology, keeping away from politics, economics, history,
and all sorts of the mass media's sensations and anecdotes,
however amusing it might be. To proceed, the key things are requested,
namely:
- To define the domains
of self-interests as biological reality, cognitive
reality, or social reality.
- To see how the
realities are interrelated by actions and activities.
- To specify the system
of related concepts as selfishness, altruism, and
unselfishness; motivation, need, or drive; morality and
immorality; intelligence and knowledge.
- To identify principal
agents, forces, causes, and behaviors, interactions and
relationships in such realities.
- To perform
the ontological cleaning of the enlightened
self-interests and unenlightened self-interests; people
can only act in their own interests, people consider
their needs, desires, and well-being as priorities;
people are obliged to help others, people are obliged to
pursue national interests, etc.
- To study the effects of
greed or unenlightened self-interests or rational
selfishness, like the tragedy of commons, when multiple
individuals consulting their own self-interests destroy
the community, quality of life, common causes, public
property, environment, and ecology.
Azamat Abdoullaev
PS: Again, the
issues like why the mega-rich shed crocodile tears over
the plight of America are more relevant to social
scientists, psychologists, moralists, politicians, and tax
inspectors.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, August 15,
2011 8:45 PM
Subject: Re:
[ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology going offline
Hi Rich,
I have two comments. One, a meta-observation about
keeping the discussion on topic, and the other about your
request about how to move forward.
You have previously suggested that some on the list
object to the discussion of politics, I can only speak for
myself... I don't mind the use of examples from politics to
motivate or ground discussions, what I find irritating are
snippets like what's quoted below:
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 11:01 PM,
Rich Cooper <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
The Democrat justifications are
legendary. Look at the Keynesian policies, which
have not worked. Look at QE1, QE2, the possible
QE3 to come, and the onerous taxes on businesses that are so
high, they won't bring home money made in other countries due to the
high tax rates?
Opinions such as this are peppered in your contributions
which are, imo, laden with value judgments that are not
related to the matter at hand. I fail to see how these
paragraphs offer anything in terms of working towards a
self-interest ontology. Rather, I see someone asserting
unfounded opinion as fact. Sometimes, when this is becomes
rather egregious, someone might chime in with a correction.
To wit, see this piece written by a high-profile, wealthy
individual that directly contradicts your previous opinions
masquerading as fact re income tax ( http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=2 ).
So, as far as I go, I'm not averse to using political
examples for ontology-related purposed -- I do tire of
seeing a particular individual's political opinions (in my opinion,
demonstrably false, and in fact, adding to a larger
environment of misinformation) fill the list, especially when
the relation to ontology is tenuous. What makes it
particularly frustrating is that for someone else to
come in and correct these statements means that the
discussion veers further away from ontology. Do you see why
some people would object to such emails and hence the
pleading to exercise more judgment before sending a note?
As to your query:
[RC]
Does anyone have a suggestion on how to proceed in
light
of our differences?
Comments,
suggestions, constructive ontolog
fragments
will be appreciated.
I can see why you, based in a Randian outlook, would
begin with self-interest. You might want to consider
refocusing on the broader idea of "motivations", whereby
self-interest is just one of many types of motivations
that drive human (or organism) action.
I shared two sources which imo are a good grounding
points and I'll add a third.
The updated Maslow based hierarchy provides a good
starting point for individual human motivations [1]. It
also explicitly takes into account how people have
differing motivations depending on their physical, social
and life-stage context.
Jonathan Haidt and others work on the origins and
variations of morality, provide another useful avenue into
how various values and value-systems come to drive
motivations, especially at the social-group setting[2].
Neither posits an explicitly political stance, and the
vocabulary deployed in each, can be used to describe what
you see as conflicting political opinions.
George Lakoff, in his book Moral Politics [3] also
provides an interesting perspective for how the community
or social organizations can be viewed. According to Avril
and Richard's language, it is at a slightly higher level
of description than an immediate ontology of self-interest
or motivation. However, he does provide quite explicit
mappings for common (American) political stances, which
are derived from a "Nation as Family" metaphor. For
example, in that book he posits that "Conservatives" often
employ the "Strict Father Metaphor" for how a society
should function, whereas "Liberals" prefer a "Nurturant
Parent" metaphor. While both perspectives draw on the same
set of metaphors regarding morality and growth, they order
them differently, leading to conflicting policy
prescriptions. So that too might be another avenue to
reconcile the apparent differences you note.
[1] Douglas T. Kenrick, Vladas
Griskevicius, Steven L. Neuberg and Mark Schaller. Renovating the Pyramid of Needs :
Contemporary Extensions Built Upon Ancient
Foundation. Perspectives on
Psychological Science 2010 5: 292 - http://www.csom.umn.edu/assets/144040.pdf
[2] Haidt, J., & Kesebir, S. (2010). Morality. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G.
Lindzey (Eds.) Handbook of Social Psychology, 5th
Edition. Hobeken, NJ: Wiley. Pp. 797-832.
Best,
Ali
_________________________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________________________
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
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
|
rwheeler.vcf
Description: Vcard
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|
