Re: SUO Quo Vadis
John,
You completely missed the ironic tone of my message and so arguing with
yourself. Sure, Avril and other readers got right its implicit meaning.
As to the issue of an upper and general ontology. There are no other ways
but constructing an UFO (Unified Foundational Ontology, or Unified Framework
Ontology, or Universal Formal Ontology, etc.).
Regards,
Azamat
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@BESTWEB.NET>
To: "Azamat" <abdoul@CYTANET.COM.CY>
Cc: "Avril Styrman" <Avril.Styrman@helsinki.fi>;
<standard-upper-ontology@IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 5:18 AM
Subject: Re: SUO Quo Vadis
> Avril and Azmat,
>
> That uses one of Aristotle's terms, but not
> in the way that Aristotle used it:
>
> > Substance: Everything that exists is a part of Substance.
> > Everything except Substance itself is a proper part of Substance.
>
> Aristotle's term for everything that exists was
> _to on_ or Being.
>
> > So, does anyone disagree with this? If many do, it is
> > certainly a proof that maybe a consensus cannot be reached.
>
> One question nobody has really answered is whether
> we need an upper level. And if so, why?
>
> John