Dear Azamat,
My comments are interspersed 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: Monday, November 07, 2011 10:02 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Cc: Rich Cooper
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self
Interest Ontology
Rich,
I believe focusing on
"self-interest", as a concern for your own interest,
advantage or well-being,
is not ontologically productive, and its more the subject of psychology,
ethics, or other special domains.
While I think that ontology is the
representation of knowledge, whether psychology, ethics or other special
domains, I don’t see a rationale for excluding any part of that
knowledge. The problem so far, IMHO, is that we haven’t found a
simple enough statement of self interest, and its effect on our belief systems
as well as on our behaviors, to be entirely constructive. I am still
seeking such a simple explanation because I believe this topic is very
important both in ontology and in AI more generally.
Its scope is better to be
widened, running from individual interests to national interests. Then the
issue becomes ontological or inclusive, involving such things as social ontology,
social reality, security, prosperity, values, etc. For instance, the US
National Security Strategy, called Obama's Manifesto for a New World Order, is
largely about "advancing our interests". There appear then many
critical questions, how to pursue your national interests without harming
others national interests, or how to merge individual self-interests and
national interest, or how to combine national interests as the shared, common
interests of the global community of countries, peoples, and nations.
Azamat
Even more so, the question of who is
the “us” who agrees that we are “advancing our interests”?
When the scope is national, it loses sight of individual interests, which are
always different from national interests as perceived by the invoker of said
national interests. I think that all economics is local (to paraphrase
Tip O’Neil) and that self interest is ONLY expressed in the individual
case, not in the national case.
Invoking national interest to take
from some and give to others is very adverse to the others! The question
most appropriate for Keynes’s theories is exactly how adverse to some,
and exactly how enhancing to the some!
By altering the debate to include
those who gain and to exclude those who lose in any given transaction, we just
obfuscate the analysis, we don’t make it more clear.
-Rich