[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] Track on Cyc?

To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Jack Park <jackpark@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:13:40 -0800
Message-id: <CACeHAVAPMUf59Yoz_3F6bJWnoXbeghkNHKmV-s7dr82fGLLGPg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
JackR,    (01)

I confess, I'm learning new things at a furious rate here. I don't
recall any rule of even Bohmian conversation that says I cannot
address an individual directly using "you", as in "how was your
lunch?" or "how would you like to approach today's conversation?", and
so forth. I'd be interested in seeing some links to back up, um, your
assertion of that rule.    (02)

I regret that I do not understand the question about credence.    (03)

JackP    (04)

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Jack Ring <jring7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Second rule. Never use "you"
> Doesn't trust put credence on a) who says X instead of on b) results of 
>vetting the content of X?
> On Jan 30, 2012, at 9:30 PM, Jack Park wrote:
>> My own opinion on this (no easily accessed backing scholarship to
>> quote) is that questions, that is the idea of questions, is does not
>> an adversarial environment create, or prevent. But...and I think this
>> is important, *how* a question is posed seems all important.
>> I'll only point out that a question like "so, why is it that you don't
>> like ..." is bound to irritate, whereas a question that simply seeks
>> to learn of  the views of others does not have to be like that, so
>> long as there is an acquired *trust* that the environment is safe.
>> That safety, I believe, is the whole point of a Bohmian conversation,
>> and, I believe, lies at the heart of Amanda's earlier comments.
>> Do questions suppress adversarial interaction? My answer: Yes if done
>> thoughtfully. No if not done thoughtfully. Questions can serve as
>> proxies for agendas. They don't have to do that.
>> If there is one attribute of a sensemaking environment that trumps all
>> others, it might be trust. Trust is built on reputations. I'd rate
>> reputations right up there in the top levels of sensemaking
>> environment membership attributes.
>> If pressed, I'd say that the ONTOLOG community is comprised of members
>> with reputations conducive of a high level of trust. I've seen drifts
>> that could have spiraled downward, but the community seems stable and
>> not given to losing control. The community's bylaws and leadership,
>> IMHO, are worthy of praise here.
>> JackP
>> FWIW: I say all that knowing that I have a personal history of
>> occasionally lobbing firebombs into otherwise stable conversations. In
>> some sense, I'm somewhat like that alcoholic that knows the
>> rules...Bohmian conversations are not easy.
>>    (05)

Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/   
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012  
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/     (06)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>