SUO: Re: Lifecycle Integration Schema
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
LIS. Discussion Note 67
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
JA = Jon Awbrey
MW = Matthew West
JA: And at this point you have said that you see a way
to dispense with 1 of these 4 dimensions, or maybe
to collate 2 of them into 1, leaving 3 as the only
3 dimensions that we need to save the appearances.
JA: Sound familiar?
JA: My question is: How can we be assured that you are
collating dimensions, and not just conflating them?
MW: Well if the property is in the axiom, then it may just be
that it is the piece of work that is left, since we only
have taxonomic and structural axioms at present.
JA: This is the comment that I did not understand.
MW: To put it another way, what is a property?
Matthew,
I will adduce a few standard bits of wisdom to the account later on,
but in the theory of intensions, qualities, properties, or whatever
that I am currently trying, somewhat off the cuff, to explain here.
a property, like sweetness, is commonly recognized by many speakers
and thinkers as an abstract object of discussion and thought, and
I am just trying to figure out if the LIS_underscored concept of
an abstract_object has any clear relation to this classical idea
of an abstract object.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o