Re: SUO: Universal Time, other universals, and cultural context
On 16.05.2001 15:56 Uhr, "David Whitten" <whitten@lynx.eaze.net> wrote:
>>> My deep conviction - and I hope it's shared by many people in this forum -
>>> is that any ontology is deeply rooted in a language and
>>> cultural context, and cannot be easily exported to other contexts.
>>
>> My deep conviction is exactly the opposite. If the SUO reflects any
>> linguistic bias then it will be the less useful for it, which is one
>> reason why NL intuitions should be avoided, or at any rate treated
>> skeptically.
>
> I'm not sure which side my deepest convictions lie.
> I think an ontology is not the same as a world view.
> a world view is deeply rooted in a language and cultural context.
> an ontology is a set of propositions.
>
> a proposition may have language and cultural context embedded in it.
> Consider a proposition stated by someone from a fatalistic, deterministic
> culture.
> Consider a proposition stated by a rigorously informal 'mystical' culture
> that believes all experience is wheels within wheels/dynamically redefined.
>
> I expect these two propositions would have a different 'meaning', even if
> they both purport to describe the same 'event' at some 4-D location.
I don't think I agree with much of this at all. Call me a purist, but no
logical theory or set of propositions *is* an "ontology". An Ontology
(big-O) is an inventory of the things that one takes to exist. A
proposition (the kind of thing capable of bearing a truth value) is one of
those things that one finds in some folks Ontologies.
An "ontology" (small-O) is the term commonly misused to name the latter
concept. It may have a logical expression, in which case the name is OK,
but this needs to be kept separate.
..bill
P.S. I'm donning my nomex suit in preparation for being flamed by Pat.
--
Bill Andersen
Chief Scientist, Ontology Works
1132 Annapolis Road, Suite 104
Odenton, Maryland, 21113
Mobile 443-858-6444
Office 410-674-7600