SUO: Re: Abstraction, Analogy, Example, Icon, Metaphor, Model, Morphism, Paradigm, Prototype, Simulation

[Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu>]

Philip Jackson wrote:
> 
> Jon Awbrey wrote:
> >
> > Philip Jackson wrote:
> > >
> > > My defense for using "the world is all that is the case"
> > > is only that it seemed an interesting way of constructing
> > > an analogy between the case-fact-rule triptych and Sowa's
> > > diagram, with potential to be more than just a play on words.
> >
> > As a Crypto-Pythagorean Numinalist, I take some offence at your defence,
> > for it is my "form of intuition" (FOI) that generals are merely numbers,
> > and thus that all the worlds' great truths are but a play on surds, and
> > we but the actors, numb and getting number, that are getotalled up & out
> > in the score of this grand play.  Seriesly, Folks.
> 
> I take both sides of the fence.  The development of human knowledge has been
> a long and profound language game, and yes, in that sense a play on words.
> Yet, the play's the thing, and words must help, not get in the way of
> acting and understanding the play.

I have been told that I act out quite a bit.

> [...]
> > > > Let me re-capitulate the triune heads of this dogma:
> > > >
> > > > 1.  The naive meaning or the natural sense of the term "model".
> > >
> > > If I understand correctly, you are pondering what would be
> > > a "semiotic model theory".
> >
> > Now, does that sound naive to you!?
> 
> Perhaps in the sense that "naive physics" relates to "theoretical physics".
> However, "natural" seems better than "naive", in the sense that "natural
> language" relates to "formal language"... Yet, any name should wait until
> the content is more apparent...

OK, this part I think I get, as I did spend some time studying
the "Qualitative Physics" of Ken Forbus, Ben Kuipers, and others.
But that was a long time ago, and my present approach to these
issues has evolved quite a bit since then.  Let me know if you
want to talk about that.

[...]
> > > Well, "rules" as logical sentences seems in close enough
> > > agreement for an analogy to hold, at least at this point.
> > > The logical sentences shown for "theory" in Sowa's diagram
> > > could be seen as "rules".
> >
> > I am trying to be careful.  There are many sorts of specialized argots
> > in the air -- or the sandstorm -- hereabouts, and I still have no idea
> > yet which of the many might be your favorite, if any.
> 
> I have no single favorite.  I try to learn as much as I can from everyone,
> past and present.  Paradoxically, I find the thinkers who have most to say,
> are the first to admit they see only a fraction, while those who have the
> least to say may claim to know everything.

It is just sorta difficult to talk to people who will not take the risk of
articulating, however inarticulately, the meanings, one or many, that they
have in mind.  I am guessing that it must be this prevalent (pre-ary) sense
that "There can be only one" that keeps all of the Immortals from wanting
to stick their necks out, to keep a low profile, and all in all to remain
on Holy Ground as much as possible.

> By the way, I also grew up in a place (Arizona) where there are
> sandstorms... As a child, I thought they were a great adventure...
> 
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > "Imagination is more important than knowledge.
> > >  Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." - Einstein
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Funny, that's the same quote that they have as their motto
> > at one of the "Weird Science" websites that I surf through:
> >
> > <http://www.stardrive.org/>
> >
> 
> I like this quote because it suggests that to imagine we must know what
> we do not know, and then consider ways to learn what we do not know.
> Imagination in the form of thought experiments, and metaphorical
> explanations, is vital to the extension of human knowledge.
> 
> SUO has a choice whether to develop a conventional, formal,
> logical ontology that captures knowledge, yet which may be
> brittle, and/or to develop a "natural, semiotic, linguistic, ..."
> ontology that is extensible, metaphorical, able to represent
> what is not known, etc.  The latter approach is much more difficult
> and involves much more research, yet may be stronger in the long run.
> There is of course no reason why both tracks cannot be pursued in parallel,
> with some benefit from cross-pollination of ideas, nor is there any reason
> why either approach cannot produce a worthwhile standard upper ontology.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Phil Jackson
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> "Words without thoughts never to heaven go." - Shakespeare
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Standard Disclaimers. www.philjackson.prohosting.com

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤

Phil,

I feel like I am going out the same door that I came in --
walking backwards, maybe, like a scene from 'Duck Sup' --
and when that starts to happen it is typically a sign
that I need to switch the sign of my conducting from
negative to positive or vice versa, and to modulate
the tone of my "critical reflective inquiry" (CRI)
up or down a notch or two through its three-phase
cycle from constructive, through deconstructive,
to reconstructive, and so that is what I'll do.

As far as being positive goes, I will just keep
writing what's come natural to me, and I will
keep on hoping to see, a bit experimentally,
what resonates with the enchoiry around me,
and what it be that is fated to fall flat.

As far as being constructive goes,
I'll get back to working on the
zeroth act of my opera, named:
"In Praise of ZOL", q.v.

But first, I am going for a walk in the park.
No sand hereabouts, just leaves.

Cheers,

Jon

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤