Unlike Humpty Dumpty, I use the word “reality” in its
natural usage. Reality to most people has nothing whatsoever to do with the
physics of that situation but instead describes the subset of things we find
valuable in our existence. That involves our personal situation as well as the
situation of those around us.
To say that the reality faced by a college student
taking NLP classes is the actual experience he gets in college is what most
college students would agree to. The same is true of housewives, truck
drivers, advertising executives and politicians.
In my opinion, the reality we each deal with is made
up of our daily events, and their effects on our lives. Quarks and leptons don’t
bother me much, and I certainly wouldn’t waste a lot of time developing an
ontology for quarks and leptons. But I would certainly spend a lot of time developing
tools and capabilities that let the students, housewives, truck drivers,
advertising execs and politicians look at material on the web which relates to
colleges, houses, trucks, ads and voters.
Not so much quarks and leptons.
I stand by my use of the word reality as I used it.
-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 John F Sowa
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:19 AM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology
is affected by Personality
On 1/28/2014 8:00 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
> I use it [the word reality] in at least two
ways...
As Humpty Dumpty said, you have the right to use any
word in any way
that you please. But if you insist on doing that,
you're not going
to be understood, or people will think you're being a
crank.
The points I was trying to make:
1. We all have different backgrounds, preferences,
habits, and
personal dialects (idiolects).
2. We also have conventions for communicating with
other people
with other habits when we want to -- or when we
don't want to.
3. For more effective communication with people (and
for designing
computer systems that communicate more
effectively), it's
important to recognize those issues.
> I don’t even think we live by any one ontology
for much more than
> an hour or two at a time before moving to a new
frame of reference,
> and therefore a new governing ontology.
That is true. But if you want to communicate
effectively with another
person or a group of people, you have to negotiate a
common vocabulary
and ontology with sufficient overlap to minimize the
misunderstandings.
And that negotiation is continuously being
renegotiated -- unless the
group agrees to (stipulates) some basic assumptions,
either explicitly
or implicitly (common consent).
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