Re: SUO: Re: Lifecycle Integration Schema
>
> PG: Semiology and epistemology are relevant only to a small portion
> of ontology (e.g., as fields and correlated activities accounted
> by a social ontology on a par with basketball playing and erotic
> theater). Other than that, this doesn't go further than the dead
> end of metatheoretic flourish.
>
> Pierre,
>
> I acknowledge the point of view that the theories of signs, information,
> inquiry, and knowledge can be detached from theories of being in itself.
> I just no longer find that way of looking at the matter to be much help.
Thanks for the terse reply. Though you could have added a few words and close
the debate. That way of looking is of no help if your goal is to soak
semiological bread in the ontological soup. That way of looking is the way of
preparing a standard upper-level ontological soup. I come from a place where
you soak pieces of bread in your soup and add a glassful of table wine, but
this isn't done before the soup is served.
Pierre
> Jon Awbrey
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
>
--
Pierre Grenon, IFOMIS Uni Leipzig
http://people.ifomis.uni-leipzig.de/pierre.grenon/