SUO: RE: Re: Extension x Comprehension
CSP is 'old hat' when you consider the current data from
neurocognitive/affective research data. IMHO you need to move into the 21st
century, not wallow in the 18th/19th etc.
In fact, with out current understanding of neurosciences etc you could BURN
every book written pre 1960s and in a short period re-establish all of the
'quality' and at the same time clear away a lot of chaff simply because all
of the material is metaphor for object/relationship processing of the
brain/mind. - we are often overloaded with 'history' and as such can fail to
see things 'clearly' ;-)
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
Lists:
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/semiosis
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/ichingplus
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> John F. Sowa
> Sent: Saturday, 23 February 2002 10:20
> To: rekent@ontologos.org
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: SUO: Re: Extension x Comprehension
>
>
>
> Robert,
>
> Welcome to the club.
>
> > Heavens to Murgatroid Jon, from all of these recent excerpts I am
> > beginning to believe that CSP was thee first Formal Concept
> > Analyst!
>
> Peirce was not the first, but he was the best. The first was
> Aristotle, and the medieval Scholastics were the most important
> until Peirce came along. The 20th century dilettantes haven't
> even begun to catch up with CSP. By diletantes, I mean anybody
> who thinks that Frege was the greatest logician since Aristotle.
> (That means, of course, that Frege was one of the dilettantes.)
>
> John Sowa
>