SUO: Remembrance Of Things Parsed
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Robert,
I am having to work through constant interruption today,
so this may be even more scattered than is usual for me,
but I think that the topic that you have touched on at
this point is important enough to spend some time on,
and so I have hopes that we can bring the various and
sundry bits and pieces of it back together in the end.
I will try to follow what I believe to be the spirit
of some advice that I got from Pat Hayes, and try to
skip a large measure of the interlusory mysteriosoes,
so let me try to telegraph right from the start what
I suppose the ultimate note, the end of the symphony,
to be.
It comes down to an "agon", a conflict, or a tension
between the aspect of "primality" or "irreducibility"
and the attribute of "modularity" or "distributivity".
I have broached this and incident subjects under the
heading of "factorization issues" -- the initial knot
on one of these threads that you might follow is here:
http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg02332.html
That is the gist of the exchange of thoughts that I had
with Christopher Spottiswoode, marking one of the first
discussions that I had with anybody here on the problems
of "Ontological Relativity", making a slightly indirect
allusion, even a "literal purloin", if you please, but
not an altogether irreverent "lifting" of Quine's title,
and of "Critical Reflectivity". The nub of it is here:
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~REMEMBRANCE~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Christopher Spottiswoode wrote:
>
> MACK goes further than that in its reflectivity. But possibly
> in rather a different way. I know Java is only used as an example
> there, but as it happens I have often found it necessary to distinguish
> MACK's reflectivity strongly from that of Java Beans or Java's so-called
> introspection. Reflectivity has to assume that it is looking at something
> relevant, but from the MACK point of view, Java'a application decomposition
> and recomposition approach all too often produces a very poor "equivalent"
> of reality.
This is beginning to look like where I came in ...
enough to make me go back and refine the title ...
> More generally, my long-standing criticism of classical OO's "island class"
> approach (the latter being Grady Booch's words) is that it often very poorly
> provides for the interconnectedness of reality that semantic webs or conceptual
> graphs are trying to capture.
Ay, there's the rub ...
And now I can dub it with a name of my own:
It usually arises in the guise of a trade-off
between the "modular architectronic tile" (MAT)
and the "triadically irreducible relation" (TIR),
between the sorts of chunkiness that we wish all the
world would fall into, for the sake of making the job
of programming all that much easier, and the un-sorts
of tangles that the real world un-cysts to tie us into.
Now here is where I know very little -- except that, whatever it is,
I run into this problem all of the time while working in a Peircean
framework, where it seems like most of the generically interesting
and genuinely useful sign relations are almost all TIR's and no MAT's.
But it may be just that I have so little experience with the proper
forms of composition for triadic relations that I cannot see where
the joints ought to be.
Does anybody else run into a problem like this?
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~ECNARBMEMER~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Have to interrupt here,
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤