SUO: Re: Perspectives on Situations, Processes, Etc.
Philip Jackson wrote:
>
> 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
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Phil,
Sounds reasonable. I will leave my reactions
as "one reporter's experience" (ORE) -- it is
your duty and your freedom to accumulate your
own, of course. I am just as fascinated with
the little nuggets of wisdom that one can pan
out of metaphorical, natural, poetic, or even
ordinary language as anyone has a right to be,
I think, and I do what I can to push the edge
of the envelope of potential sense if it come
to that, as you know, but still, when we get
to stuff like process, that most fleeting of
all categories, all the more same-staying in
spite of that, when even time is nothing but
illusions of allusions to standard processes
that all the world finds it convenient, they
think, to call o'clock, well, then I believe
that a new way o'clocking tolled the hour of
those old ways o'clocking, starting with the
time of Leibniz, Newton, & then one Einstein.
Best Wishes,
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤