Re: SUO: Re: Lifecycle Integration Schema
The first three lines in the following paragraph were seemingly too long and
were broken in the message. Just to let you know that this not a problem with
your computer but other on this list experience the same inconvenience.
>
> It is always a bit tricky to say this right. If we say "reality is just a
concept",
> that all of its objects are "concepts" or "constructs" or "fictions" or
"hypotheses",
> that is a scion of colloquy, a slip of loose talk that will eventually get us
into
> trouble if we, or most likely others, take it too literally. Better if we
say
> that our knowledge of things is conceived, constructed, pretended, preposed
> to refer to a substance beneath the superfices that appear in experience,
> moreover, that a great many of the signs that we use to convey and store
> this knowledge are of an artificial proxy, in stead of a natural kind.
...
> Look, in my everyday life I operate on pretty much the same set
> of "un-reflective folk assumptions"
no shit?
> (URFA)
I think that UFA would be a better acronym.
> that we all know and
> love and hate under the dublious mis-monicker of "common sense".
> But when it comes to research oriented scientific ontologies or
> your average upper-level technical ontologies, especially of an
> order that we'd like to get computers to obey, then a different
> regime and a whole new order of regimen succeeds on the scene.
Oh, I see. In French 'regime' means diet and at first I thought you were saying
that you tend to change your diet when it comes to research oriented scientific
ontologies or Matthew's average upper-level technical ontologies which sounds
really silly. After poundering the issue, what I read makes slightly more
sense.
Pierre
--
Pierre Grenon
IFOMIS Uni Leipzig
Haertelstr. 16-18
04107 Leipzig
http://people.ifomis.uni-leipzig.de/pierre.grenon/
pgrenon@ifomis.uni-leipzig.de
phone: 49(0)351971672
fax: 49(0)3519716179