SUO: The Story So Far - Request For Calm
Nicola Guarino wrote:
>
> I believe that the level of agreement on this issue -
> monolithic vs. non-monolithic approach - is suitable
> to be checked by means a vote. As I have noted in the
> past, a vote on issues like this one makes much more sense,
> at this stage, than a vote on an initial "merged" ontology.
> So I ask James to call for a vote on this. According to
> my notes, besides the people mentioned by Matthew, also
> Chris Menzel, Chris Welty, Robert Kent, Frederick Chase,
> and Philip Jackson have expressed their preference for
> a non-monolithic approach.
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
James, Nicola, & All,
As much as I believe that the democratic way and the
way of inquiry are meant to pave a two-way street of
conjoint evolution and mutual facilitation, I cannot
ignore the evidence of experience that there remains
a certain tension between them that requires the wit
of conscientious reflection to pick the optimal path.
And so, before we exhaust our energies and two weeks
of our productivity on a vote whose outcome can most
likely be foreseen by all right now, let me toss out
this alternative question for your approval and your
earnest contemplation:
| Even if we throw a polylithic party, and even if everybody
| rather naturally says that they would love to go, how many
| do you think will actually get there, and how do you think
| those who do will actually be able to get themselves there?
In other words, I think that the real question is
not much a matter of setting a nice-sounding goal,
but the issue of how it can be reached once we do.
That is just how I see it.
Many Regards,
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤