SUO: Re: Focus and Volume
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Philip Jackson wrote:
>
> Jon Awbrey wrote:
> >
> > Philip Jackson wrote:
> > >
> > > John Sowa wrote:
> > >
> > > > But I agree with Phil, that this explanation,
> > > > which required two paragraphs to state, should
> > > > have been included in the original note by Jon A.
> > > > As one can see, the original note merely cited the
> > > > two KIF formulas, and then it went on to give some
> > > > history about how the little Ducky's got their names.
> > > > See the original:
> > > >
> > > > http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/suo/email/msg04666.html
> > >
> > > PJ: What seemed irrelevant to me was all the extra
> > > details about the history of the nephew Duck's
> > > names, the existence of a fourth newphew duck, etc.
> > >
> > > PJ: By itself, these extra details would not be objectionable --
> > > indeed they can be taken as interesting and entertaining.
> > > Yet taken in context with other postings, they start to
> > > add up to spam.
> > >
> > > PJ: A more clear cut case of this seems to be Jon's posting of
> > > the myth about how the trickster-god obtained his manhood.
> > > So far as I can see, this was basically pure spam -- there
> > > was no need to post it to SUO, and it did not contribute
> > > anything to SUO.
> > >
> > > > JS: Bottom line: Examples like these would be fine if nestled among
> > > > a continuous discussion thread with the original text at the head
> > > > and all the comments placed sequentially on the same page. But when
> > > > they come out of the blue (especially without proper explanations),
> > > > they can be disconcerting.
> > >
> > > PJ: Agreed.
> > >
> > JA: The Trickster myth was brought to mind by a strung out series
> > of notes that began, I believe, with Pat Hayes' analogizing of
> > Merged or Monolithic Ontologies to Universal Novels, followed up
> > some time later by some comments from Mike Uschold. This made me
> > think of the sort of thing that my high school literature teachers
> > might have said, that all good novels are universal novels, but, of
> > course, their universality is achieved in a very individual way, and
> > not in the way that Pat so justly lampooned. Namely, a universal novel
> > is one that evokes universal themes, or "archetypes", as some folks would
> > call them. And the topic of "ontological relativity", or to say it another
> > way, the "comparative and structural analysis" (CASA) of ontologies, was one
> > of the bits of adhesive that initially trapped me in this gadflypaper medium.
> > Now, the "Trickster's Ontological Phallus" (TOP) is obviously one that could
> > never fit into a scientific ontology without undergoing a large measure of
> > interpretive work, but the character of the episode that was salient in
> > this context was the narrative continuity of the story, a quality that
> > seemed to outweigh the minor issues of consistency and plausibility.
> > Well, many other thoughts came to mind along these lines, but I do
> > not think that I can recover them at the present moment in time.
> >
> > http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg03801.html
> > http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg04649.html
> >
> =================================
>
> Jon,
>
> I would agree that, depending on how a SUO is formalized and
> constructed, some elements of a standard upper ontology could
> well be expected to appear as elements, themes or dynamics in
> a "universal novel", or an "archetypal universal story / myth".
> I would also agree that myths have been at least very important
> and perhaps essential in helping people develop ontological
> frameworks for understanding the world.
>
> Having said that, let's turn to the issue of how your ideas are
> presented, and why they may sometimes be justly perceived as "spam".
>
> Your explanation above about the trickster phallic myth
> is in regard to your posting:
>
> http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg02334.html
>
> which you followed by another posting:
>
> http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg02371.html
>
> From the perspective of a SUO reader, both these postings were quotations
> about/from mythology without any explanation of their relevance to SUO.
> The relevance in your mind to the postings you now cite by Hayes and
> Uschold was not obvious or clear. You did not even cite the postings
> by Hayes and Uschold in your postings. The reader was left to guess
> how or if these postings were really related to SUO, and without
> an explanation, a reader is justified in perceiving them as
> a form of "intellectual spam".
>
> The fact that a reader may perceive such postings as spam,
> and be annoyed by them, is your fault, not the readers.
> Perhaps it is an indication of intellectual laziness on
> your part in not providing explanations. In any case,
> it is not a problem with the readers "taste", as you
> have suggested in your parallel reply to a thread of
> correspondence between Frank Farance and me.
>
> In the same way, another example of intellectual spam
> is the messages that you've posted which contain only
> a single line of information, such as "x is in n".
>
> It is more than difficult enough to read what you write --
> you should not also expect us to read your mind. To the
> extent that you post messages that can be regarded as spam,
> it diminishes rather than increases the motivation to read
> what you write.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Phil Jackson
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Phil,
Please refer to my previous note to Frank Farance,
in which I attempt to explain myself in this wise:
> There are several different disciplines that I observe
> in addition to my orthographic obsessions, which appear
> to fascinate some folks to the point that they cannot
> seem to focus on anything else.
>
> 1. There is the discipline of inquiry, which means among other things:
>
> a. The recognition of the problems that exist in a field.
>
> b. The acknowledgement of the uncertainties that prevail.
>
> c. The seeking out of whatever ideas might contribute to
> a practical solution, no matter what their sources.
>
> d. The testing of potential solutions against the original
> problem requirements and against likely alternatives.
>
> e. The checking of theoretical fancy against concrete examples,
> and against empirical datasets whenever pertinent and possible.
>
> 2. There is the discipline if proof with respect to
> formal, logical, and mathematical assertions.
>
> 3. There is the discipline of programming, and always keeping in
> mind what it takes to be making sense, computationally speaking.
>
> 4. There is the discipline of reading the associated literature,
> or at least having read the basic primers in a relevant field,
> before weighing in with some axiom set hatched out on a rainy
> afternoon that is intended to "cover the globe" in some area.
>
> 5. There is the discipline of providing scholarly references to
> the sources of the most significant ideas that I am aware of
> borrowing. This is not just a matter of giving credit where
> credit is due, but is intended as a service to readers, so that
> they can avail themselves of the greater wealth of ideas that the
> original source is likely to provide, and so that they can check
> for themselves whether my interpretation of the source accords
> with the one that they would form from their own reading of it.
> For some odd reason, this has brought the charge of evangelism
> down on my head, but if the likes of Russell, Whitehead, and the
> whole analytic gang had observed a similar discipline, instead of
> treating the works of all previous generations as so much public
> domain material, then this charge would not even be in the air.
>
> In pursuit of the principles, I have contributed to this group
> some of the only detailed proofs of any assertions at all, and
> one of the only real-life datasets gathered for funded research
> that it has seen here. This does not count, of course, links
> to websites that may contain such things. But some people
> just seem to fixate on the passing bits of doggerel verse,
> designed as a moment's comic relief. Frankly, I do not
> comprehend their taste.
Now, given my dedication and my duty to all of these disciplines,
all of which are part of my every working thought, and have been,
incrementally, if intermittently seriously, for thirty years now,
I would have to be a pathological sado-masochist if that was the
only mode of thinking that I ever engaged in or exercised others
with. So there must be room for different styles of thought and
expression, even within the straits of a single heart's desiring.
Perhaps it is a question of alternative bases of culture, dialect, education,
or just plain fancy, but where I come from it would be regarded as downright
rude to read a story to somebody and then to tell what it means, before they
should have a chance to think it over for themselves. That is the etiquette
that I inveterately and second naturally follow and I do not see much chance
that it will change. Of course, things come up, and one's plan to follow up
with a personal gloss on the theme in question may not always materialize as
soon as one might wish. But the technique of the "epitext", a connected set
of epigraphs, is one that I find very conducive to stimulating a not too set
in its way form of reflection from a distance on the sorts of questions that
we all too often have our noses against the grindstone of, and so I shall no
doubt continue to pursue it and to try to nudge others to see its advantages.
All of these notes, that appear so cryptic when taken out of context,
were very well-motivated by the living contexts in which I made them.
I am quite aware that different observers have different awarenesses
of what it is that constitutes the "immediate context" (IC), but the
only context that I can reasonably anticipate is the context that is
actually aworn by me. Yes, the context of the Universal Novel piece
was a bit diffuse, but I had also just remarked a few days before on
my tack of taking a "comparative and structural anthropology" (CASA)
approach to the problematics of linguistic variation in graph theory:
| That is why that I take up here -- why I 'try' to take up here! --
| the attitude of "comparative and structural anthropology" (CASA),
| the same tack that I take toward my study of many other religions.
|
| http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg04676.html
Okay, I realize that no reader is so attentive as to hang on every acronym
that I let drop, but this is just the latest new cover of an old song that
I have been harping on all along. At any rate, I was under the impression
that the subject line itself, "Stories Unraveling Ontogenesis", would have
been at least partially self-explanatory.
As for the "One-Liner Chronicles", those were necessarily punctuated
episodes in a long-running series of dialogues with Matthew West, in
which I was desperately seeking any gambit, means, stratagem, tactic,
or trick that I could find to bring about in my focal and peripheral
readers a "moment of semiotic awareness in context" (MOSAIC), namely,
an awareness of the anaphoric facticity of indexical, pronominal, or
variable reference. It is the sort of MOSAIC that is typically only
reached through either one of two very different paths, an extremely
acutesy self-conscious awareness of the ebb and the flow and all the
passing tides of signs that form the eddies and the undertows of our
so-called stream of consciousness, such as I have once or twice been
afflicted with, if you can believe it, or else the disciplinary arts
of computer programming, especially when it stares in symbolic pools
for some reflections of mind that it may hope to spy reflected there.
I have yet to evaluate whether I succeeded in my experimental trials,
but I still believe that it was worth a shot.
All in all, I am genuinely sorry that you find so much
permanent distraction in the secondary characterictics
of style that are meant to be such transient diversion,
but my observation of human nature, generally speaking,
tells me that those who seek distraction usually do so
for reasons of their own heart's desiring, and so that
is a good place to look for a piece of the explanation.
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤