Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: AW: SUO: The lattice of theories




Pierre Grenon a écrit :
> 
> Jean-Luc,
> 
> I don't have the time to read all the allegedly relevant posts, I trust
> you'll be kind enough to forgive, maybe indicate, any omission or
> misunderstanding. 

NO, absolutely not, I am not kind at all!

> Also, this might sound as yet another colorful message. I
> suggest that people aware of the French language and who might be offended
> by the string of letters 'shit' skip this message and that usual critical
> and productive discussions go on peacefully as part of this ontological
> cafe.

I am not offended by the "ontological cafe" denomination but that 
may not be the case for everyone on this list :o))

> The first disclamer is that I am not fighting against perspectivism or some
> generally ethno-ontological approach.
> 
> Same question as asked to Franck. How do the 'concepts' in the registry
> found the development of other concepts?

Serving to define parts or properties that would constitute characteristic
attributes of other concepts. As of today a swan is either white or black,
so if the "thing" is neither white nor black its probably not a swan.

> Could you quickly explain (or send a pointer to such explanation) why it is
> so important that the set of primitive be minimal? That doesn't seem
> justified. If it turns out that there are meta-ontological categories that
> are relevant to any domain, I don't see why reductionism should be prefered
> to some form or another of pluralism.

What's the point asking "newbee" questions while you have already answered/posted 
30 messages on this list and this since <Mon, 08 Oct 2001 13:58:04 -0500>,
earlier than me!
May be you don't *really* read the *content* of the messages, just the humor?

Anyway, here are the pointers in support of the "minimality" of the primitives:

 http://mars.virtual-earth.de/pipermail/cg/2002q2/004284.html
 http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg08724.html

> I am sure you explained this already and several times, but I cannot
> understand what's so crucial about having a set of meaningless concepts. Are
> you just interested in having handles and some sort of skeletic articulation
> between handles?

I don't see where Franck or myself stated that the base concepts 
should be "meaningless" or "skeletic"...

> Here's a minimal set of underspecified concepts: {Merde, Merdique,
> Merditude}. I am genuinely convinced that the world revolves around these
> concepts and that they can serve as basis for the task that you seem to have
> in mind. 

You are taking an unfair advantage over people who don't understand French!

> I claim that neither are pairwise reducible and I don't want to
> associate a meaning to these, that seems to fit your requirements. Do you
> agree? That would make two of us and we'd have a pretty robust
> meta-ontological , maybe even ontological claim here. Would you like to
> present a motion for a starter document?

Why not!

It is still possible to define some relations between concepts without
having any idea of what they mean to such or such reader.
This is close to the (in)famous argument of Searle's Chinese Room.

Let's try:

 'Merde' is a base concept like 'red'. It is not defined but used 
 to define other concepts.
 'Merdique' is a quality of some concepts that makes them have
 the "nature of the Merde" (yeah, yeah, some more meta-concepts will 
 have to be defined to enable stating such relationships).
 'Merditude' is the property (reification...) of being 'Merdique'

Et voila!

BTW, are you an expert in 'Merditude'?
  
> I don't really understand your point about gravity (or was it "garvity"?) 

"garvity"?
Where did you see that in the text, this might be a "reading typo" of
yours not a "writing typo" of mine.

The commonly "endorsed" meaning of gravity is certainly not the same 
today that what it was by the time of Newton.

Been drunk, depressed or smoked something weird recently?

> By 'concept', do you mean 'word'?

Not exactly, though most words correspond to a concept, some words only
correspond to relations (also concepts if you admit reification of relations)
but some concepts have no corresponding words and must be referred to
indirectly by some denoting periphrasis.

> Thanks for clarifying those points and for your time.

Your contribution to the entertainement of the list members is welcome.

Cheers.

-- Jean-Luc Delatre
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So many idiots, so few comets" 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 http://perso.club-internet.fr/jld/  -- GSM: +33 6 11 24 06 29