SUO: RE: Re: The Story So Far
Dear John,
> 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.
MW: A good point worth clarifying. In my view a choice is required just when
failure to make a choice leads to a logical contradiction, and that is the
test
I would be looking for (at least as a starting position). Choices of course
only
apply within a particular point of view.
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/
=============================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@oakland.edu]
> Sent: 06 March 2001 14:46
> To: Stand Up Ontology
> Cc: West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK; Douglas McDavid
> Subject: 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
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>