RE: SUO: The Story So Far
>There are several separate issues here:
True.
> 1. 3D vs. 4D coordinate systems.
>
> 2. Role of identity and identity conditions in ontology.
>
> 3. Process or object as the more fundamental kind of entity.
>
>It is possible to take different positions on each of these
>questions, and of the three, I consider either choice on #1 to
>be less of an obstacle to translation than one's choice on
>questions #2 and #3.
I think that to folk who think like you and me and Whitehead, 1.
seems peripheral; but to the other guys it seems much more
significant. They look around and clearly see a 3-d world, and get
very uncomfortable with the 4-d idea.
Again, my own view on 3. is that neither should be taken as more
fundamental, and in fact that many things can be seen either way: I
think this classification is pragmatically handy, but of minor
importance; a kind of ontological syntactic sugar. But the other guys
find it centrally important, and apparently you do as well, oddly
enough (Ive always wondered how it can be that you are such a
thoroughgoing 4-d/process enthusiast, and yet at the same time you
put the occurrent/continuant so prominently into your upper
onotology: which is why we are even having this extended discussion,
by the way.)
> >Statue = clay makes a kind of sense, in 3-d or 4-d; but it goes
> >further than that. Imagine the clay being fired in the kiln, and then
> >it is both statue and clay and firing; the thing is identical to the
> >event. Many people find that much harder to swallow.
>
>I would say that firing is a larger situation that includes
>more than just the statue or the clay. It also includes the
>fire, the oven, and surrounding circumstances.
Yes, sorry, I was careless with words. I meant, the process going on
in the statue as it is being fired from mere clay into pottery-stuff
(is there a name for that? Vitrification?)
> So I would not
>equate the firing with just the statue or the clay, but I would
>say that the entity that is clay-becoming-statue remains the
>"same thing" during that process.
OK, but you are now in a minority; most of the pragmatic folk out
there certainly wouldnt make that identification. (I'm not saying you
are WRONG, just not on the democratic side, as it were.)
> >>Yes, that is the point of view that Whitehead would take,
> >>it is the point of view that Peirce would take, and it is
> >>also the point of view that Aristotle would take. I don't
> >>know anybody, except perhaps Nicola, who would seriously
> >>consider any other position.
> >
> >I really doubt that Aristotle thought about 4-d,
>
>The question of the statue or the clay belongs to a class of
>issues on which A. did take a position. I don't want to dig
>out the exact passages right this minute, but the basic point
>is that he did not consider multiple "entities" residing in
>the same thing at the same time, but just one thing that was
>being described in different ways.
>
> > but others than
> >Nicola would include at least Peter Simons and Barry Smith, to name
> >two living colleagues. In fact I think that the endurantist view is
> >much more common than the perdurantist one.
>
>I would like to hear from them to say exactly what position
>they would take on each of the three questions above. And as
>I said in other notes, I don't like the terms "endurantist"
>or "perdurantist". There are multiple questions involved,
>and I would prefer to keep the answers distinct -- or at least
>to distinguish 2**3 = 8 positions rather than just 2.
Yes, I agree. Its just been a handy way to use in these emailings to
refer to what are in fact two broad categories of views , rather than
two finely honed particular views. I think though that these broad
divisions do really exist and that the terminlogy is not wildly
misleading.
> > It seems to be the line
> >that people find most immediately compelling, probably since it fits
> >very naturally with normal ways of talking. I recall causing a huge
> >row on the PSL discussion group a few years ago by claiming that
> >there was no real difference beteween a process and an object.
>
>I would say that there is a difference in rate of change,
>which enables you to ignore the changes in some with respect
>to the others. I would call a glacier an object during
>a ski trip, but a process when considered over a period of
>centuries. Fundamentally, they are all processes, but when
>the difference in rate of change is more than 2 orders of
>magnitude, the quantitative difference makes a qualitative
>difference.
That is a useful way of thinking about it for many purposes, I agree.
A related observation is that the reason space and time seem so
different is because we are so incredibly slow compared to the speed
of light.
> > (I
> >used the example of a ripening tomato, and showed that it fitted the
> >PSL process criteria, and was chastised for causing silly
> >time-wasting debates, since it was just obvious to all normal people
> >that a tomato was NOT a process.)
>
>Every living thing is a process, which unfortunately can be
>stopped rather quickly in many cases.
As I said, though, the PSL community did not share this intuition.
....
> >>Nobody has ever asked me to pass a "continuant".
>
> >And if you then smash it, grind it under your foot, sweep it up and
> >pass them the pile of clay, will they be happy? (Sorry, I couldn't
> >resist asking.)
>
>They would be justified in complaining if I smashed it, since
>they merely asked me to I pass it. (In my ontology of thematic
>roles, moving takes a "theme", but smashing takes a "patient".)
That seems like a pretty slender insurance against what could be an
expensive misunderstanding. I must remember to choose my words
carefully when dining with you.
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