Ed Barkmeyer wrote:
This is
a would-be taxonomy without classification criteria, or
consequent
properties, which makes it ontologically useless.
Alternatively,
one can see it as an itinerary of places to be visited on
the way
to formulating some kind of political science ontology.
-Ed
True, it’s only a starting point, not a finished
ontology. The final version should ultimately be capable of reasoning in
its various shades.
I still want to map the elements cited (and others
TBD) into a regular rendering, and I prefer IDEF0 since it is well known by
nonontologists. When the ontology is finished some day, it can be mapped
into the IDEF0 structures and interconnects, and augmented with rules for logic,
etc.
This is
a would-be taxonomy without classification criteria, or
consequent
properties, which makes it ontologically useless.
Alternatively,
one can see it as an itinerary of places to be visited on
the way
to formulating some kind of political science ontology.
True. Its only a starting point.
Your discussions below re the meaning of self interest
is also useful. I’ll think about it some more, but I think self
interest is still a slippery concept to me, and will take some deeper thought
to render properly.
Thanks for the thoughts; more would be appreciated
also,
-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 Ed Barkmeyer
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 8:52 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self
Interest Ontology
Ignoring the choice of political scientist as source,
this purports to
be the basis for an ontology.
What is the basis for this high-level taxonomy?
What are the
distinguishing properties of the 2nd level
classifiers?
And how do those properties relate to
"self-interest"?
All organizations have self-interests, and their human
components
typically share some of those interests, either out of
ideology -- what
the organization does is "good" -- or out of
pragmatism -- I will do
well only if the organization does well (even though
the definition of
"x does well" is quite different for x=me
vs. x=the organization). But
there are also cases in which the self-interest of the
individuals may
be to the detriment of the organization -- I can use
the organization to
do well -- as in the leveraged buyout game. And
a lot of work is
motivated by "pride in accomplishment" --
personal fulfillment, which
may or may not be "useful accomplishment" --
organizational value.
Bureaucrats commonly mistake making a contribution for
making a useful
contribution. So, it is not at all clear to me
how position in an
organization affects the self-interest of either the
individual or the
organization.
This is a would-be taxonomy without classification
criteria, or
consequent properties, which makes it ontologically
useless.
Alternatively, one can see it as an itinerary of
places to be visited on
the way to formulating some kind of political science
ontology.
-Ed
Rich Cooper
wrote:
>
> If we limit the Self Interest Ontology to just
the players Chomsky
> mentions (directly or indirectly), the set of
agents could be
> organized thusly:
>
>
>
> -government
>
>
-legislators
>
>
-judiciary
>
>
-cabinet level executives
>
>
-employees
>
> -NGOs
>
> -corporate
>
>
-stockholders
>
>
-directors
>
>
-executive management
>
>
-lobbyists
>
>
-employees
>
> -individuals
>
>
-taxpayers
>
>
-adults
>
>
-minors
>
>
-beneficiaries
>
>
-adults
>
>
-minors
>
>
>
> This gives one view for the Ontology which
identifies the agents that
> participate in the Chomskyesque materials.
Does anyone want to
> suggest additions, deletions, or changes to the
list above?
>
>
>
> Activities of the Self Interest Ontology might
include:
>
>
>
> -government
>
>
-taxation
>
>
-regulation
>
>
-legislation
>
>
-enforcement
>
>
-judgments
>
> -corporate
>
>
-markets
>
>
-monopolies
>
>
-competitors
>
>
-persuasion
>
>
-operations
>
>
-finance
>
>
-capital
>
>
-revenues
>
>
-costs
>
>
-lobbying
>
> -employment
>
>
-taxation
>
> -Individuals
>
>
>
> One way to develop materials for filling in the
lower levels of the
> ontology might be to process NLP from
Chomsky’s books and articles,
> and news stories, including daily news articles
from individual
> reporters, articles from corporate news sources
(e.g., WSJ, NYT, LA
> Times, etc). By identifying the named
entities that correspond to the
> agent classes above, it should be possible to
organize news stories to
> deepen the Self Interest Ontology to include
lower level subclasses.
> This is a very limited first step in identifying
the actors and
> activities that play identifiable roles a la
Chomsky’s viewpoint. It
> should also identify the news sources which are
biased in each
> direction for each class of agents.
>
>
>
> Has anything serious been left out of the top
level for the Self
> Interest Ontology? Again, suggestions are
appreciated,
>
>
>
> -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 *Rich Cooper
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 30, 2012 6:46 AM
> *To:* '[ontolog-forum] '
> *Subject:* Re: [ontolog-forum]
Self Interest Ontology
>
>
>
> Chomsky’s theories of the corporate-state
partnership, and how it
> concentrates power in the hands of large
corporations, are well known,
> especially:
>
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TieGj2Yi5r8
>
>
>
> But neither Rand nor Hayek subscribed to
corporate-state partnership.
> In both cases, they value the individual, not the
corporation and not
> the state and certainly not the combination of
the two. So I don’t
> think that is the reason why he is unhappy with
both Rand and Hayek.
>
>
>
> From the above video “elections are always
bought”, “President Obama’s
> election was funded by corporate
interests”, and numerous other
> examples indicate his deep displeasure with the
state-corporate binding.
>
>
>
> I would like to see quotes from Chomsky that
specifically describe his
> displeasure with both Rand
and Hayek rather than trying to predict his
> rationale. Chomsky is always very deep in
his rationale, so I don’t
> think that we can simply say the corporate-state
binding is why he is
> against either Rand or Hayek.
>
>
>
> Mike Pool quoted this short paragraph from the
article, which is
> somewhat enlightening:
>
>
>
> "Hayek was the kind of 'libertarian' who was
quite tolerant of such
> free societies as Pinochet's Chile, one of
the most grotesque of the
> National Security States instituted with US
backing or direct
> initiative during the hideous plague of terror
and violence that
> spread over the hemisphere from the 60s through
the 80s. He even sank
> to the level of arranging a meeting of his Mont
Pelerin society there
> during the most vicious days of the dictatorship.
"
>
>
>
> But that critique is not directed at
Hayek’s ideas about economics in
> general, only about his interpretation of
Hayek’s poor showing in the
> political area, specifically in supporting
Pinochet and the US
methods
> of supporting property owners at the expense of
the average citizen.
>
>
>
> His description of how democratic groups in Haiti were
overturned by
> the US government and a dictator was
reinstalled under US actions, is
> typical Chomsky, and very clearly in line with
his past work. But in
> broad brush strokes in the article, he paints
both Rand and Hayek
> (neither of whom are known for their political
wisdom) as evil without
> considering the kudos they gave to the
individuals.
>
>
>
> -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 *Chris
> Menzel
> *Sent:* Monday, May 28, 2012 5:30 AM
> *To:* [ontolog-forum]
> *Subject:* Re: [ontolog-forum]
Self Interest Ontology
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Rich Cooper
> <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> Thanks – a very interesting article.
I’m surprised at how vehemently
> Chomsky shrugs her off as evil. He
doesn’t give any explanation in
> the article; do you have any information about
WHY he thinks Rand is
> evil?
>
>
>
> It's obvious if you read Chomsky's (vast) work on
political theory and
> American social and political history, especially
his writings on
> social security, taxation, corporate welfare, the
massive
> redistribution of wealth from the middle class to
the top income
> brackets engineered by conservative tax policy
over the last dozen
> years, etc, all of which are in vehement
opposition to the social
> darwinism that lies at the heart of Randian
economic theories (and
> current GOP economic politicies).
>
>
>
--
Edward J.
Barkmeyer
Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive,
Stop
8263
Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg,
MD 20899-8263
Cel: +1 240-672-5800
"The opinions expressed above do not reflect
consensus of NIST,
and have not been reviewed by any Government
authority."
_________________________________________________________________
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