SUO: RE: SUOP Topic :> Definition Of Definition
Dear Jon,
Two points:
1. I accept that anyone may use anything as a sign to
represent anything else.
2. There is utility in a community agreeing to use
particular things as signs in a consistent way.
These we may call signs with definitions. I would
further expect that those that represented classes
would have definitions that identified the
necessary (or perhaps desired) properties of
members.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@att.net]
> Sent: 28 November 2003 18:06
> To: SUO; West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE
> Subject: Re: SUOP Topic :> Definition Of Definition
>
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> SUOPT :> Definition. Note 13
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> In: SUOP Topic Outline.
> http://suo.ieee.org/email/thrd1.html#11635
> Or: SUOP Topic Outline.
> http://suo.ieee.org/email/thrd2.html#11635
>
> Matthew,
>
> Just for the record -- a bit broken by now, for sure! -- I
> will include
> the traversal path of the topic tree up to this point, but
> don't bother
> to tread these, as I'll try to say it all more clearly this
> time around:
>
> Re: SUOPT :> Definition 08. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11776.html
> Re: SUOPT :> Definition 10. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11801.html
> Re: SUOPT :> Definition 11. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11806.html
> Re: SUOPT :> Definition 12. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11849.html
>
> The question to be clarified is the following query,
> a thing that I call the "Categorical Interrogative":
>
> | Does the being of an X consist in it's possessing a particular
> | "set of properties" (SOP), independent of it's being called by
> | the name "X", or does the being of an X as such consist solely
> | in it's being named as such?
>
> One of the things that we have tentatively learned by dint or dent
> of the Issue thread history is that the value X = Issue is likely
> to have no natural resolution, but one that will most likely be
> achieved, if at all, via dolorosa or via subrosa of consensual
> arbitration, and by this arbitration to say that the result
> will be arbitrary to some degree, cleaving to a cleavage
> between natural issue and formal issue that is nominal,
> not real, and cannot be said to cleave any natural
> distinction at the joint thereof. Sobeit, then,
> if that be the only way to reach settlement on
> the question.
>
> Still, nothing about the nature -- or perhaps "character" is
> the apter term --
> of that particular form of settlement will of necessity apply
> to other cases,
> such as X = Defect, X = Problem, X = State, ..., nor indeed
> of X = Definition
> itself. People brought up in the schools of throught
> commonly referred to as
> "Nominalism" and (some brand of) "Realism" -- though I myself
> prefer to avoid
> the pseudo-issues that arise from Using the "Isms" that I
> have thus Mentioned --
> may have a tendency to claim that all concepts and terms must
> come to settle
> on the same side of the fence, but I cannot see much
> justification for that,
> not if one fairly examines the evidence. At any rate, that
> is my opinion,
> and I have no doubt that there will be a second.
>
> Still again, on the other pan of the balance, the bits of life that
> we expended in mortaring and pestling the substance of an Issue, or
> the lack thereof, aren't of necessity wholly vain in application to
> other X's, not if we use systematic methods of qualitative analysis.
>
> So that is what I will endeavor to prescribe next,
> but for now this brand of thinking makes me tired,
> and so I will take some diversion with my friends,
> family, rest, and relaxation.
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
>