SUO: Re: Lists & Archives Now Working
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Graham Horn wrote:
>
> Hi Jon,
> . I take it you are referring to
> your predictions that any division would be futile,
> since there would be indecision over which e-mails
> should go where.
I did not say that any such division would be futile,
indeed, I believe that it will be very productive --
productive chiefly of future divisions.
And there will be no indecision about what belongs where,
indeed, every individual and every coalition of individuals --
and here, for now, I deploy the word "individual" advisibly --
absoulutely will be certain that every message unlike unto
their own ilk absoulutely will belong somewhere, anywhere
else but within the reign of their attention. There is
really no trick to predicting such things, except the
knack of paying attention to what has gone before --
but I digress, that remark would belong under the
auspices of "history", and is out of bounds here.
Prediction 1.
> Subject: SUO: Re: What Is & What Should Be Ontology
> Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 12:34:01 -0500
>
> I will need to take some time to work through all of the points
> of this note, but I wanted to address one particular issue that
> I believe is crucial, while the iron is still hot and while the
> moment is still opportune.
>
> I understand the frustration that many people are feeling here,
> but I believe that it one of the tenisons that are inherent to
> the life of the subject of ontology, as its very name begs us
> to respect, and I believe that the worst way to resolve it
> is by severing the ligamnets across which it stretches.
>
> This is a farly generic phenomenon -- I have seen it arise
> time and again between "empirical" and "rational" POV's,
> between "connotative" and "denotative" specializations,
> between "founded" thinkers versus "coherent" thinkers,
> between "extensional" and "intensional" perspectives,
> just to name a recent few that randomly come to mind.
>
> Suppose that we do "split up" -- the thing they always do in horror movies,
> which is what makes them such horrible movies -- for the sake, as they say,
> of "rendering" our inquiry more efficient. What do you think will happen?
> Well, here is my prediction -- 'cuz I have seen this sort of movie before:
>
> Say we split the "OntoLogy Group" (OLG) into a couple of emphases, say,
> the "OntoOntoLogy Group" (OOLG) and the "OntoLogyLogy Group" (OLLG)?
> Do you really imagine that this will be the end of it? Not a bit!
> Next thing you know, there will arise a "hue and cry" (HAC) to
> divide the house once again, into OOOLG and OLLLG, at least.
> And so it goes -- or so it will go -- as it has gone before,
> to the point of shear chaos, in a very technical sense.
Prediction 2.
> Subject: SUO: Re: Proposal on Lists
> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:00:16 -0500
>
> Michael Uschold wrote:
> >
> > Even if I subscribed to 4 or the 5 suggested, which I would,
> > this would still be a significant reduction in email, since
> > the one i woudl NOT join puts out a LOT of discussion.
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> Mike,
>
> I am assuming that you mean LOT 49 --
> But I think that everybody is ignoring
> the frictional side-effects of a schism
> like this, one of which is that about 49%
> of the busy-ness in each sub-congress becomes:
> "Should this Bill belong to this Posse (PC)?"
>
> I have seen it happen ...
> Haven't you?
Just in case anybody is confused by my manner of metaphorical aside-effects,
the point of this last remark was not 'primarily' to make a statement about
the current affairs of the "United States Electile Dysfunction" (USED), but
to say that a large amount of the ensuing business of each "posse comitatus"
would be concerned with what are the "proper" subjects for it to take up and
what is the "warrant" for its "juris-dictions". From what we have seen since
in this "Novus Ordo Seclorum" -- and I am not really talking about that other
bill of tender, and the motto thereon -- you may think now that 49% is a gross
underestimate, but I am sure that this is just an issue of paying the overhead,
and that, in time, it will settle down to the customary excise on our wits of
just about half.
> . While you superficially appear to be right,
> and I did think of you, actually the problem relates to
> a significant subject area that is not categorised by the
> four now available. Further, Jim allowed for extensions,
> should that be necessary.
If I am going to be right, when it comes to such dire dis*asters,
oh please, please, let it be superficial!
Cheers, Anyway,
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤