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

AW: AW: SUO: The lattice of theories

Oh Jean-Luc, there's no need to play the nasty bitch, I know you have a
golden heart.

Can you send me pointers that address the issue of the minimality of the set
of primitives? I don't undertand Robert Kent email so I don't know if John
Sowa's facetious reply is relevant to the issue and I don't think you meant
to point to the other post either. Thanks for sparing me the pain of looking
through your complete opus.

Just so that you don't ponder these issues any longer:
-yes, I am an expert in 'Merditude'
-no, I usually don't read most messages on this list, yours in particular
(and 'ontological cafe' was not meant to offend)
-""garvity"" was my typo (apologies, I guess I just can't cope with France's
elimination of the World Cup), you correctly spelled the word in your
message (congratulations, you've just save France's honor). I was puzzled by
the way you were referring to these notions (namely, a word in quote and a
time period).


Ps: Feel free to send more drivel, but at this point planning to spill a
beer over those things might be as good, maybe this summer, let me know if
you're interested. Any other taker?

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: []
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Juni 2002 16:52
> An: Pierre Grenon
> Cc: Frank Farance;
> Betreff: 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:
> > 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"
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  -- GSM: +33 6 11 24 06 29