Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: SUO: Re: Im/material Ir/reverence




Oh, come on, Pat: devil advocacy is one thing but when you chew up your own
intellectual ancestry...

Yes, I admit, you finally yanked my chain (which you do periodically) though
I can only sample these msgs. 

I too love trashing philosophers and scientists and those recent
philosophist-scientists who wear AI clothing or other wool (or 2nd or 3rd
order correlates): one can embrace a career doing so, no? 

Progress and science and rationality are really only abstractions, right?
Knowledge-towards, categorization of the world, theories are only human
shadows, right? You seemingly advocate but really deny science: is any
fiddle-faddlery we come up with (here or elsewhere) closer to a truer
characterization of the world or not? Information science can always dodge
too, since we are after a "representation", not the "real thing". 

Leo

_______________________________________
Dr. Leo Obrst, Director, Ontological Engineering
VerticalNet, 650 Dresher Rd., Horsham, PA 19044
Phone: 215-315-4065  Fax: 215-657-6184  Cell: 215-669-3669
Email: lobrst@vertical.net

============================================================================
This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) and may
contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not
the intended recipient, dissemination of this communication is prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies
of the message and its attachments and notify postmaster@verticalnet.com
immediately.
============================================================================



-----Original Message-----
From: pat hayes [mailto:phayes@ai.uwf.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 8:04 PM
To: Jon Awbrey
Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Subject: Re: SUO: Re: Im/material Ir/reverence



Dear Jon

>You are obviously having a bad day -- and believe me,
>I know how bad such a day can be! -- and so I will
>simply offer my commiserations and hope that you
>find some consolation before the day is done.

On the contrary, I am having a fine day. I just LOVE trashing ancient 
philosophers.

>As to reasons for reading Aristotle -- you miss my point, too --
>even if it were nothing nearer to the "literal truth" than some
>piece of mythology, that is to say, when read literally, as it
>rarely makes sense to read it, or creative literature, or drama,
>or fiction, not to mention some bits of science, too, and still,
>as many literal-minded imaginations persist in reading all of it --
>nay, even then it would be worth reading, if only to find written
>down, in a brief spell, perhaps for the very first time, the very
>things that we have believed all of our lives, without quite being
>able to articulate them.

You seem to have just contradicted yourself; unless, of course you 
believe that all the things you have believed all your life do not 
make sense when read literally. This might be true, of course 
(particularly as your mental life seems to consist largely of puns 
and wordplay) in which case I can only offer a silent prayer for your 
system of beliefs and turn to more practical (and interesting) 
matters.

>In short, the "concepts and distinctions" (CAD's) of these old folks
>will effectively inform the "architectronic design" of your everyday
>and your technical thinking about everything from particles to waves
>to everything that is entangled in between, whether you wit it or no,

It might, although I VERY much doubt it. I havnt ever come across a 
scrap of evidence which suggest that it does, and the history of 
science suggests that the thinking of the 'old folks' was almost 
always inadequate for every new idea which came along, and usually a 
positive hindrance. The idea of 'final cause' is a good example. 
(Just try reading Harvey on the circulation of the blood, to see how 
much of his valuable time was spent on trying to put the old folks 
right, for example.)

>....
>As for this troubled notion of a soul --
>psyche is soul and soul is psyche,
>and that is all you need to know,
>and it is a word that still
>breathes on our lips,

Not on mine, my friend.  I am quite sure that I don't have a soul or 
a psyche; and even if I did, I don't think I would want them in my 
ontology.

Pat Hayes

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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


============================================================================
This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) and may
contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not
the intended recipient, dissemination of this communication is prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies
of the message and its attachments and notify postmaster@verticalnet.com
immediately.
============================================================================