What are the forces that distort our representationsof what's observed, what's expected, and what's intended?
the short answer is.... the force behind all distortions is
our own unenlightened mind, and all the shortfalls this comes with
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/b0d6f8e6-05e1-3f4f-aefd-9816b497567b%40att.net.
Good morning. This is winter solstice -- a special time for people in-synch with that clock...
Jon's comment and response to PDM makes me want to respond. I was stimulated by the initial comment from Jon suggesting interdisciplinary breadth and influences, and the link to politics and democratic governance. I do tend to live there myself, and I see the explosive flood of political irritation we've been witnessing on American cable news lately as a horrendous train wreck in semantic distortion. I'm inclined to say flat out -- this system does not work, and it's not fixable without a hugely vitalizing injection of enlightened insight.
I've been off any sort of ontology for several months, but these brief comments here stimulated me. I got into this theme of "representation", and read a Barry Smith article on that theme
Beyond Concepts: Ontology as Reality Representation: http://originresearch.com/docs/Beyond_Concepts_Barry_Smith.pdf
And I went back to this extremely tantalizing topic of "Closed Loop Interval Ontology" -- which continues to glimmer in the back of my psyche with a kind of awesome magnetism.
I might pick up this subject again -- but maybe start by approaching it from its historical roots -- a flood of anthropology on symbolism -- concepts like the Great Chain of Being or Mandala, or any kind of vision of The Sacred Tree...
I did write a one-page description the other day, probably under the influence of this new espresso maker. I'll just paste it in here...
And PS, Jon, on the "weakened state" -- eat your spinach. We got a ways to go here. 😊
Notes from December 19, in response to Ontolog
Generally, the claim is: all the major principles defined in semantic ontology and traditional epistemology can be defined on this model, in a systematic and consistent way. It holds them all, contains them all, links them all together as a single concept subject to a vast array of interconnected interpretations and applications – all of which can arise within the same systematic context.
It is the foundation of both empirical science and philosophy. It is the foundation of engineering. It directly links the liberal arts and the humanities to the sciences, in one smoothly integrated form and container. It links mysticism to science. It explains the properties of metaphor and analogy.
In the political and social context of collective decision-making, it is a pole-star and universal containing framework linking the whole to the part. It is the framework for collective convergence of “diversity” towards “unity”.
This model presumes that all these below topics from classical epistemology can be smoothly mapped onto this one linearly extended 2-dimensional framework, with a few essential top-level definitions completely clear, such as “unit” and “continuum”, with everything defined on (within) the hierarchy contained by (within) the linear boundaries of this form. Every element within this framework is defined and constrained by the concept of “interval”. Everything is an interval, occurs within or is defined within an interval.
Now we propose that the entire structure is a single interval – a single unit interval supposedly containing everything we can possibly define.
And noting that the basic form of this object is a linear extension in two dimensions x and y:
The extension of this form (“width”) as a single interval in the x (horizontal) dimension has “2 edges” separated by the “height” of the y dimension, which links the edge of the unit interval defining the top level of abstraction (the infinite) to the unit interval defining the lowest level of abstraction (the infinitesimal) – with all ontology and taxonomy and semantics defined within the bounded range defined by the y axis.
We then close this framework, mapping and connecting the top edge in the x axis to the bottom edge of the x axis, forming the object known as a “moebius strip”.
In this action, we have then closed the entire range of analytic taxonomy and semantic structure within a single closed bounded interval of infinite (and infinitesimal) extension. This single “closed loop” contains everything, all defined in a uniform systematic way in terms of “intervals”.
Each edge of this form is the boundary of an interval. It defines both “infinite” and “infinitesimal” and everything in-between in a single algebraic loop closed on itself. All interpretation and definition occurs within this form.
A few of the many terms subject to systematic definition in this framework
• Number (all types)
• Unit interval
• Ordered class
• Taxon / taxa
• Many / One
• Levels / types of variables
• Global / Local
• Whole / Part
• Induction / Deduction
• Value (whether numeric/empirical or abstract)
• Boundary value
Santa Barbara CA USA