Bruce: Just had to laugh, this is a perfect illustration regarding the "unpacking" of implicit (tacit) stipulated meaning --not only regarding a few broad principles (such as the way complex meaning is tacitly embedded in brief abstractions), but also highlighting a very common fundamental driver of the entire process: psychological economy (time and/or energy to make things clearer).
There's a whole bunch of interesting things on this web site - http://iase.info – but I gotta agree with John.
JS: I am highly skeptical of one-sentence summaries, especially when they contain five vague and highly debatable notions: self-referencing, embody, natural, epistemology, and ground.
Bruce: Every one of those five terms is highly value-laden, involving a complex/specific definition that “must be stipulated” by somebody – and negotiated with whoever the speaker is addressing to make sure the terms are clear and understood. Getting all that done is a lot of work. J
If we’re talking about some kind of “universal ontology” on all this stuff (laugh again) – I think we gotta put some “negotiation software” in there somewhere. Maybe “diplomacy software”. Let’s get the dimensions lined up right (“apples and oranges”) and then everybody push hard (and play nice) for their team --
I used to be into “relaxation methods” for balancing load stress. Maybe that’s what we need JJ
(805) 966-9515 Santa Barbara
http://interspirit.net | http://sharedpurpose.net | http://bridgeacrossconsciousness.net
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Concept dictionaries and interlinguas
I currently have only time for the passing comment. Better for me to say nothing, I agree.
Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
On Aug 13, 2013, at 7:44 PM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The reason that these approaches fail is that they are
>> self-referencing and embody neither a natural epistemology nor ground.
> I am highly skeptical of one-sentence summaries, especially when they
> contain five vague and highly debatable notions: self-referencing,
> embody, natural, epistemology, and ground.
> I have a high regard for the people who have been doing that research
> over the past half century. I won't claim that they have examined
> every possible approach from every possible point of view. But any
> claim that they have overlooked something that could be summarized in
> one line would require much more justification.
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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