ONT Re: WIANTAMMKIAAMTHMKAN?
- To: Arisbe <arisbe@stderr.org>, Complexity Group <complexity-l@venus.vcu.edu>, "Organization, Complexity, Autonomy" <oca@cc.newcastle.edu.au>, Semantic Web <seweb-list@cs.vu.nl>, SemioCom <semiocom@listbot.com>, "Stand! Unfold! Ontology!" <ontology@ieee.org>, Standardize Unto Others <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>, Topic Map Mail <topicmapmail@infoloom.com>
- Subject: ONT Re: WIANTAMMKIAAMTHMKAN?
- From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu>
- Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 08:08:01 -0400
- References: <3B468246.95162B01@oakland.edu>
- Sender: owner-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
| How could anyone have arranged these bits,
| this garbage, in such a way that it
| caught at the heart, snagged in
| the soul like a fishhook?
|
| William Gibson, 'Count Zero'
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Just a few more parting thoughts before I hit the road --
I am still trying to form the beginnings of a question
that I will e-ventualy have posed to the several heads
of this beast I e-spy, raring up before my e-very eyes --
I have only the half-hitched up inchoate fractal hints
of it yet, but it has to do with the e-volution of the
web: Will it becomce a whit that is very very new, or
will it become a whit that is very very old, and which
way of twisting the mix will be the best for us anyway?
Let us accept our status as the new whit's irredundant
homunculi. Then the question may tentatacly be reduct
to the old bit about 2*2: Taking it for given that we
already grok 2 in deep, if you belive that fora moment,
then the reminder of the question is: "What about"*"?",
and I mean that in the most kleeneliness is annexed to
gödeliness sort of way. But my real question is, just
in case you were wandering, is whether the web will be
a place where we e-potheosize the e-ponymous turf wars
of e-pics past, or if, just if, a way "to say we end"?
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤