SUO: Re: Lifecycle Integration Schema
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
LIS. Discussion Note 20
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
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.
JA: 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.
PG: 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,
Thank you for your delicate serving suggestions, as we are just
beginning to acquire some moderately palatable wines here in the
colonies and I plan to spend the rest of my weekend tossing a few,
with or without the sops.
It's been a rough week, but I think that I managed to stay remarkably
well focussed on the content of Matthew's document. Of course, when
I look at this or any other material the things that come to mind
are the things that come out of my own outlook, but I think that
this week's work has amounted to a productive dialogue, indeed,
an imposing symposium overall. I gladly look forward to next
week's work, but for now I am too weak to work much at all.
But it's a good kind of weak.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o