SUO: RE: Re: Perspectives on Situations, Processes, Etc.
Jon Awbrey wrote:
> Yes, of course, but to "accommodate situation semantics,
> linguistics, and many other related topics" is not the
> same thing as expecting to derive a workable theory of
> kinetics, dynamics, or process from the inflections of
> tense in ordinary natural languages.
I did not intend to suggest anything so grand. I do however think there may
be a germ of truth, and potential usefulness for constructing an upper
ontology, in the fact that natural languages provide ways of expressing
"aspects" (not "tense") of the same "situation" as either a "single
shapeless whole, similar to the concept of a 'point' in geometry", or
somewith with a "temporal shape".
It seems to me this could have some relevance to the discussion about what
is a "continuant" and what is an "occurrent" - the answer suggested by
linguistics might be that these are both just aspects, or perspectives, and
that we should not try to insist that things must be either continuants or
occurrents, but allow that they can be both, depending on one's point of
view.
However, I do not claim that this is the case-- Rather, I welcome feedback,
comments and multiple points of view. I'm still trying to develop my own
point of view on these matters....
Phil Jackson
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is
limited. Imagination encircles the world." - Einstein
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Disclaimers. www.philjackson.prohosting.com