SUO: Re: More Standard Arguments
pat hayes wrote:
>
> >¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
> >
> >pat hayes wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear Pat,
> > > >
> > > > I agree with the issues you raise, but would suggest a slightly
> > > > alternative alternative solution (which is what I thought your
> > > > original response to Chris P was saying). That is that we allow
> > > > the different viewpoints, but aim to understand the relationship
> > > > between them.
> > >
> > > Well, I agree. But that is explicitly not the goal of the SUO (or
> > > indeed anything that could possible start with the word 'standard').
> > > To allow the different viewpoints is to allow a variety of different,
> > > incompatible, ontologies, not to impose a standard.
> >
> > I do not get this contradiction you see between "plural" and "standard" --
> > I feel like I am back in some old philosophy class where the Big Question
> > of the day is <pick you favorite notion> and ask "Is it One or Many?"
> > When I decide to go to a restaurant, first I must choose what kind of
> > fare I want to consume, and when I get there they give me menu with
> > the standard fare listed on it, but it is not customary for everyone
> > to be compelled to choose the same thing. Will it not ever be thus,
> > that choice and diversity are as interleaved as any other well-seasoned
> > and well-tossed salad?
> >
> > Buono appetito !
> >
> > Jon Awbrey
> >
> >¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> An excellent metaphor, Jon. Let me run with it a little.
> The question is, whether the SUO is going to be something
> like a food hall, where almost any kind of cuisine can be
> had, provided that one is willing to walk around and find
> the food one wants; or if it will in fact be a particular
> kind of restaurant. If you go to a Thai restaurant or an
> Irish pub diner you will get menus in either case, but you
> had better not expect to be able to eat Beef and Cabbage
> with Pad Thai. I think the SUO dream is something like a
> kind of general-purpose Standard Upper restaurant, where
> one can assemble egg drop soup, steak & kidney pudding,
> breakfast fries or baked alaska just by choosing the right
> ingredients from a kind of universal menu. My point is
> that you are always going to need cooks, and that even
> the best cook can't boil fried eggs.
>
> Pat
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC (850)434 8903 home
> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
> phayes@ai.uwf.edu
> http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Pat,
There is diversity. There is constraint.
The notion of having "choices" means being
suspended in the ambiguity of our conceits,
tantalized by both. I do not have to choose
sides in this, once and for all. I may choose
sides in this, hic et nunc, as befits my sense
of the moment, and of the thing to be achieved.
My point was simply that "diversity" and "standards"
are not contradictories. Put on your old galois-shoes,
and I am sure that you will be able to negotiate a path
between the whirlpool and the rock. There are times when
we have no choice but to collect, to store up, and to keep
sharp and lively our choicest repertorium of standard choices.
I have tried several times now in this forum to start up a discourse,
and to suggest a few artifices for how we might begin a little more
deliberately and formally to reflect on it, concerned with the ways
that we are actually able at times to make judgments of the form
"X is better than Y for the sake of Z", and wary of the times
when we just cannot.
Call me a dreamer ...
Jon
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤