SUO: Re: The Story So Far
Matthew West wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> It occurs to me that some may be a little confused about
> what all the fuss is about. There has been a very lively
> discussion about how we should construct an SUO, with a large
> number of sub-plots, the result being that you could be forgiven
> for being confused about what the discussion is actually about.
>
> This at least is my version.
>
> There are a number (say about 4-5) of world views that are documented,
> either in natural language, or in a more formal form, with a number
> of possible variations on these.
>
> Ian and his supporters argue that because all philosophers do not agree
> on just one of these, we should ignore all of them, giving preference
> to a process that Ian might describe as pragmatic selection from
> various sources and merge.
>
> I, Pat Hayes, John Sowa, Chris Partridge, Nicola Guarino (please
> correct me if I am mistaken) and perhaps others would argue that we
> would be better served by understanding the existing World Viewpoints
> and relating them to each other.
>
> Discussion
>
> As far as I can see there are four possible outcomes to Ian's approach.
>
> 1. Ian solves the problem that previous philosophers have failed to solve
> and creates a single ontology that everyone agrees is how the world is.
>
> 2. Ian recreates one of the possibilities that are already known about.
>
> 3. Ian creates a new ontology with a different world viewpoint than those
> already existing, adding one more to the list that philosophers don't
> agree about.
>
> 4. Ian fails to create a consistent ontology.
>
> Let us consider these in turn:
>
> 1. Included for completeness only. I don't think Ian expects this outcome.
>
> 2. One of the two most likely outcomes, in which case it would be more
> efficient to do some homework and make an informed choice (or adopt
> the counter position above).
>
> 3. A remote possibility, and probably the least useful.
>
> 4. The most likely short term result, based on what I read
> and my own experience, getting to a consistent universal
> ontology from scratch takes some 5-10+ years work -- for
> those few who can claim some measure of success.
>
> The alternative approach:
>
> - Recognises that there are a (small) number of major world
> viewpoints that exist and are valid (within some range).
>
> - Tries to understand explicitly what are the elements
> that underpin those viewpoints and the applicable range.
>
> - Identifies key choices that are mutually exclusive.
>
> - Documents those viewpoints based on that understanding.
>
> - Enables interoperation between those viewpoints
> by mapping between them.
>
> We could of course pursue both of these options.
>
> Comments?
>
> Regards
> Matthew
> =============================================
> Matthew West
> Operations & Asset Management
> Shell Services International
> H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
> Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929
> Mobile: +44 7796 336538
> E-mail: Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com
> http://www.shellservices.com/
> http://homepages.rya-online.net/matthew-west
> =============================================
> Also:
> Shell Visiting Professor
> The Keyworth Institute
> The University of Leeds
> http://www.keyworth.leeds.ac.uk/
> =============================================
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Matthew,
Thank you for this very succinct and thoughtful prognosis!
The only thing that comes to mind right off the bat that
I might even think to add would be something like this:
By way of pursuing the element of your alternative that:
> - Identifies key choices that are mutually exclusive.
We ought to be very careful about identifying mutually exclusive options,
especially, very wary of POV's that present themselves as Either-Or's
whenever it is conceivable they merely gloss different facets of the
same object, subject, topic, or whatever, as this has been one of
the places, historically and hysterically speaking, where we have
wasted the most time, that is, assuming that at least some of it
could have been avoided, which is a good question for such as us.
We should not confound this care, this wariness, this welcome to synthesis,
with the various pretences to ecumenical tolerance that are often preached,
but as seldom practiced, for it is very decidedly different than even that.
In my experience, these unmelting "pretences of tolerance" (POT's) are just
as bad, if not worse, because they set up a situation that says, in effect:
"All POV's (in a standarized set) are welcome, but everyone has to chosse."
The combination of the "All" with what is "covered" by the parenthesis is
really just a shabbily disguised totalitarian stance, and a corresponding
attempt to distort reality to fit. Somehow, we always tend to forget --
because it may just be that Nature does not give a tinker's damn about our
pretences to "mutually exclusive", and now implicitly "exhaustive", options.
I have passed through fields that were positivistically rife with
that pretentious prefix "anti-" and that insufferable suffix "-ism",
which, after the fashion of their rich relation "meta", have become
so habituated with prolonged use that they have not only lost almost
all of their erstwhile senses but appear to render the users thereof
positivistically dopey. And even though folks have been taught that
they are 'sposed to act nice toward their infidel neighbors, somehow
there preveils this under-stated tenet that only a morally corrupt
and a thoroughly debased person would "refuse to choose" between
what every righteous and true and serially faithful person can
fathom to be "mutually exclusive, tacitly exhaustive" (METE):
" Either ' essentialism' ' Or ' existentialism ' "
" Either ' empiricism ' Or ' rationalism ' "
" Either ' behaviorism ' Or ' cognitivism ' "
" Either ' idealism ' Or ' realism ' "
" Either ' absolutism ' Or ' relativism ' "
" Either ' objectivism ' Or ' coherentism ' "
" Either ' extensionalism ' Or ' intensionalism ' "
" Either ' logicism ' Or ' psychologism ' "
" Either ' denotatism ' Or ' connotatism ' "
" Either ' formalism ' Or ' intuitionism ' "
" Either ' modalism ' Or ' nodalism ' "
" Either ' atomism ' Or ' etherism ' "
" Either ' ... ' Or ' ... ' "
If you are beginning to get the picture that maybe, just maybe,
the implicit form is more important than the explicit contents,
that the ultimate invariant message is hidden on the bare face
of the medium that bears these shifting and variable instances,
well, then you are beginning to get the same picture that I got,
that it is really this stricture of the "Either'_'Or'_'" that is
designed to get itself eternally and recurringly transmitted here,
that is conating and conspiring to deliver and to render itself now,
like some entelechial virus, immortally and perpetually communicable.
And so far it seems to be working ...
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤