Re: Fwd: SUO Quo Vadis
Rob,
I agree:
> Anyway, I think there is a lot in common between what
> you are saying, what I am saying, and now what I understand
> Mark to be saying: that we need to focus on the human character
> of ontology, that we need to think of ontology as the result
> of a process, and "different perspectives for different purposes".
>
> It would be nice if we could capitalize on that commonality.
But I would avoid the term "human character" because it is
much too confusing and much too likely to lead to the kinds
of topics that I *don't* want to address.
As an example of the kind of topic we must address, consider
the definition of the word _business_. People have gone round
and round in circles trying to define a business as a set or
a mereological sum or other kinds of nonsense. But they omit
the fundamental principle:
The goal of a business is to make money.
There is, of course, the intermediate principle:
In order to make money, a business must have the goal of
producing a product or delivering a service that earns money.
And there are many other intermediate goals implied by these two.
As I said before, you can talk about the goals and strategies
used in a chess program and implement them in a purely formal way.
You can also talk about the goals, intentions, strategies, and
deterrents used in business, medicine, engineering, law, etc.,
in purely formal ways. If an ontology is to have any use whatever
in any of those areas, it must address goals and intentions.
All those ideas fall under Peirce's category of Thirdness.
John