RE: SUO: *Date 02 Mar 2002 -- Pro Forma Language
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> Jean-Luc Delatre
> Sent: Monday, 4 March 2002 5:57
> To: Stand Up Ontology
> Subject: Re: SUO: *Date 02 Mar 2002 -- Pro Forma Language
>
>
>
> Jon Awbrey a écrit :
>
> > Here is my personal working bibliography of books on linguistics from
> > the last time that I accumulated the spare quanta to assemble one, so
> > you can see that some of them are in the "classic to crusty" category.
>
> You are missing St. Augustine, de dialectica:
> http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/dialecticatrans.html
>
> It's really worth reading.
> I know that this will enrage Chris Lofting but he is probably
> filtered out by now.
>
love you too Jean-Luc ;-)
Why deal with approximations in thought when you can now deal with the root
of thought and so be more precise? Subscribe to Trends in Neurosciences,
Cognitive Sciences etc etc
A while back an education in your teens, early 20s would have seen you
through for life. No more, especially in Science/Technology areas where we
need to work from the precise understanding of the nature of the species
rather than ancient, and predominately 'western' perspectives rooted in
Religion etc. Each day more and more information is emerging re our nature
and to ignore it to read texts sourced from the same brain without knowledge
of that brain serves no purpose other than to maintain delusions.
It is like those who keep to taking Astrology literally rather than as
metaphor... a 'need' for the security I suppose in that people fear giving
up their cherished beliefs.
The pace of development in our knowledge base means we will all have to
re-evaluate belief systems within our lifetimes rather than be able to hang
on to them for generations UNLESS we focus belief at a 'higher' level - that
of the species rather than specific collectives within the species.
To focus at the level of the species means to prioritise information in
education etc in that species-level data comes first (as in "Your Species
and its Brain 101", "Introduction to Brain Methodologies 101" (includes
neurocognitive roots of mathematics etc)) and *then* comes collective
perspectives where you can choose 'metaphors to live by' ;-) IOW understand
your brain BEFORE you read St Augustine etc and so be able to appreciate the
struggles 'they' went through trying to understand things without knowledge
of how they actually functioned; you do not let the past lead you, you can
use it as support if you wish but to try and maintain/bring forward ideas of
the past based on approximations (or even delusions/illusions re
spirituality etc) serves no purpose other than to confuse future
generations.
As I have state before, we could burn all books pre 70s (or even 80s) and
soon recover from the 'loss', with probably a better perspective on things,
based on what we know about 'in here'. (species level seperation of
chaff/wheat would be needed since collectives would have 'biases' :-)) To
many the 'purge' would be frightening in that the 'loss' would be their
belief in their heritage but as I said, we are getting to a state where our
beliefs change many times in our lifetimes and NEED to to maintain our
'push' for understanding UNLESS we shift focus from individual/collectives
to the level of the species and as such recognise that a lot we have taken
literally is in fact metaphor... not a favoured approach by the more
'spiritual' amongst us but still a matter of fact - we are animals, a
species that dominates a planet through development of high level
consciousness. Rejection of adopting a species perspective by recognising
and developing understanding of that consciousness for the sake of a
specific collective's perspective is no longer acceptable in that the
idealism that goes with the collective's perspective is a direct threat to
species survival.
If I go and read Kant or Hegel etc and accept their perspectives re
dichotomisations,dialectics etc I put back development hundreds of years, I
return to their times in thinking and that is not very useful; it is like
the 'push' by some to take a perspective a la Peirce - sorry but all out of
date. You need to understand 'in here' FIRST so encouraging people to read
texts based on approximations when you have access to texts based on
precision is IMHO 'not good'. Reading Kant, Hegel, St Augustine is fine
AFTER understanding how we work.
All that we CAN know is determined by our senses and how our brain/mind
function. period. Understanding the METHODOLOGIES of our brain/mind aids us
in understanding far more than clinging to 'favoured texts' of one's youth
;-) We dont need to copy the brain, just the methodologies.
Linguistics/CompSci/Philosphy 101 should be neurocognitive science all the
way and THEN read the 'favoured' texts. These days our brain is the only
'constant' - although there is evidence to suggest that it too is changing!
(increase in ADD etc reflects a consequence of the push for precision etc
etc?)
yours, unreasonably,
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
Lists:
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/semiosis
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/ichingplus