RE: Re: Inconsistent models, mapping, interoperability, and the SUO
Joshua,
Just to cover some finer points,
through analysis of the dynamics of differentiating/integrating, we can
derive very vague qualities covering notions of wholes, parts, static
relationships, dynamic relationships. I converted these to gerund forms
associated with FEELINGS:
wholes - blending
parts - bounding
static relationships - bonding (share space with another/others)
dynamic relationships - binding (share time with another/others)
The four universals, when associated with a qualifier dichotomy (e.g.
expand/contract, differentiate/integrate, positive/negative etc) give us
eight basic qualities forming the ground for meaning then derived through
emotions and on into the many categorisation systems derived by our
consciousness.
The four Bs cover meaning derivable pre the written/spoken word and cover
the core issues of dealing with the context. The recursion process gives us
a dimension of precision, with the above qualities encoded such that the
dimension with its qualities is relabelled for each specialist perspective -
and it is to these qualities that analogy/metaphor interact with, allow us
to map specialisation X with specialisation Y etc.
The recursion allows us to derive a row of qualities of such precision that
all forms into a continuum and we can no longer differentiate (or it is not
practical to do so). ANY ontology will utilise in its specialist terms the
above general qualities. We can take the universal form and sort it to
reflect specialist perspectives, different sequences, same qualities.
Chris.