SUO: Re: *Date 11 Mar 2002 -- Manifolds Of Sensuous Impressions
From: "Jon Awbrey" <jawbrey@oakland.edu>
> In assuming a distinction between objects that are inherently subjects
> and subject to concepts that are intrinsically predicates, you have [not
> only] made a significantly charged ontological assumption, that is to say,
> taken up a non-trivially non-neutral position on the categories of being,
Agree.
> you have [also] committed the transparent projection error that is
commonly
> known as "confusing the map with the territory", to wit, "reifying
syntax".
I don't understand this sin. *If* I have an ontology of representations,
and that ontology admits objects *and* relations, and I have contrived
some mechanism to manipulate these representations to model something; how
is it a sin for that mechanism to manipulate the representations of the
relations just as easily as it manipulates representations of non relational
objects? Where is the confusion in such a mechanism?
Or have I totally misunderstood your allegation?
Seth Russell