SUO: Re: Standard Upper Ontology Procedure Topics
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
SUOPT. Note 6
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
SUOPT Outline. http://suo.ieee.org/email/thrd1.html#11635
CA = Chris Angus
JA = Jon Awbrey
Continuing from:
SUOPT 05. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11717.html
In reference to:
JA: SUOPT :> Defect 01. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11711.html
In substance:
JA: What is a defect?
CA rematks:
CA: At least this is one that seems to have something to do with
Matthew's document. But is it an issue against his document?
Are you disagreeing with his definition of 'defect'? Or is it
simply a placeholder to remind yourself that you want to talk
about it one day?
Chris,
At this point I am merely giving Matthew's text the "once over",
so to speak, going through the routine clerical task of parsing
it into my neural and textual workspaces, making a symbol table
and chunking it thrice into Archive, Netscape, Wordpad formats.
I've scarcely had the time or wits to think about it much more
deeply than that, though, of course we have all been through
similar discussions here, there, and elsewhere before, and
so with no great powers of prescience it is possible to
anticipate some likely scenarios for how things'll go.
Other than that, I have e-gauged Matthew on a number of [I|i]ssues,
in particular, the one Kafka-<Esc> Castle just stormed in passing --
sorry, Murray, it's the "anxious irritability" (AI) that brings on
these flashback@tacks -- and that, off course, has mustered a host
of new words to the fray.
Look at it this way, via email you received a ticket to write
in your own thoughts as regards the "topic in question" (TIQ).
If you give up the right to remain silent, then your words
will be taken down in evidence and may be used in a court
of laws, hopefully logical, against you, but the maximum
penalty that you run the risk of suffering, in any event,
is the Administration of Justice and its due Corrections,
logically speaking. Don't you buy all that PR guff about
"Brave New World" -- this is the real reason that Miranda,
the non-strict purely functional programming language based
on Institutions of Laws, got the name that it has. Quod Vide:
http://www.engin.umd.umich.edu/CIS/course.des/cis400/miranda/miranda.html
CA: It becomes even more confusing with examples
like 'Quantifier'. I still do not know what
it was really there for. Does it relate in
any way to Matthew's project?
The cluster of words -- Freud used "Gedankenkreis", "circle of thought",
for this until Jung, who had evidently encountered samples of algebraic
topology in his Wanderjahren, talked him into switching the terminology
to "(associative) complex", the last time that he ever listened to Jung --
{Qualification, Qualifier, Quantification, Quantifier} all come to mind
at once for me.
At any rate, it's probably not time to get into that yet.
One guideline for the stepwise approach is not to run to
deep (or too silent?) on any branch of the outline tree,
but to try and maintain some breadth in the exploration
of the developing problem space. Matthew and I pushed
to a depth of Nine exchanges (ominous number!) on the
Issue of Issues, and that was probably a bridge too
far without more development of the other Topics.
If a particular idee puts the procedure in a fixe,
then it's probably best to shift to a neighboring
nuance in the complex, to see if that will unglue
your soles' wings from the flypaper on the wheels.
As it were ...
JA: The basic idea is just to organize our discussion of Procedure
a little better, partly in hopes that maybe we can quit going
round and round in circles, without making any real progress.
CA: I fail to see how it helps achieve your stated purpose.
(Sorry, probably shouldn't have said purpose, might lead
to another such note if we haven't had one already).
Quod Video:
SUOPT :> Purpose 01. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11677.html
SUOPT :> Purpose 02. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11679.html
I am just trying to find some way to e-mulate in this hyper-dialogical
problem space the methods and techniques that I learned over many long
years of instruction, not to mention an ample quota of errant re*trial,
and that I have thereby come to accord my well-warranted confidence in.
The apparent time frame of this work does not bother me -- I worked on
one program for a solid decade to fashion it the way I wanted it to be --
but if one's methodology and one's capacity for critical reflection on
on the practice thereof is anywhere near adequate to the task, one can
expect on the average to make incremental progress toward one's object,
for all the routine backtracks and paradigm-shifting setbacks, or else
to uncover the reason why, which is a compensation prize of some worth.
That is what I demand/expect of any moderately respectable methodology.
It's what people in every other milieu I ever knew demand/expect of it.
Despite every discouraging prospect that we've seen here,
I do not see any good reason to settle for anything less.
Rest later,
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o