ONT Re: Inquiry Into Inquiry
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
W.M. Jaworski wrote (WMJ):
Doug McDavid wrote (DM):
Jon Awbrey wrote (JA):
DM: I've come across this [to reduce the content of consciousness to unity]
in my desultory explorations of CSP, and it seems that this was a major
item on the research agenda of the day.
DM: Reduction to unity? Sorry, I don't get it.
WMJ: Reduction of your "Inquiry Driven Systems" (IDS) document:
http://www.door.net/arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/awbrey/inquiry.htm
to a topic map? Seems not doable now. Enhancing IDS by a topic map? Why?
To allow navigation over the IDS document and perform a documented "inquiry"
into IDS document. Interested? If yes then recover from the IDS an initial
list of the sets (not set members!) and their characteristics and put in the
table:
| Name, Cardinality, Type, Comment
|
| where: type ::= crisp | fuzzy | rough
I had been hoping that this Topic Maps lingo would be one those that I could learn
simply by hanging around long enough in a place where folks are already talking it,
if only people will tolerate my baby talk long enough for me to get the hang of it,
but I am still struggling through Guy's helpful tutorial, and every time I look at
the official grammar book I am banked back into the gutters of an utter despair by
the circumstunces of all of my most favored notions being snookered there in turns
of english the angles whereof are beyond my cue and outside my corner of pocketing.
If you catch my drift ...
But I still have the greatest e-thusiasm for the mission ...
So, yes, I be interested, and I will try to repay in some way, in kind, in time.
But I will need to ask a whole bunch of really basic questions,
and I trust that you will be of a flexible style of mind if it
transpires in time that the Tailors of TMesis will need to cut
a wider swatch of fabric in order to fully address our inquiry.
First question:
What do you mean here by "set"?
(I said that it would be basic!)
WMJ: How to deal with the relationships between sets?
Will be done in the next steps.
WMJ: BTW I am prepare to allocate my free labor to the "enhancing".
WMJ: Reduction of research to unity of loose talk? Sorry, I don't get it.
WMJ: To reduce verbiage about CSP (if any), please refer to
specific pages of the book "Knowledge Representation"
by John F. Sowa.
Sorry, I fear that I learned my Peirce so long ago
that the manifold of my sensible impressions about
inquiry will naturally be reduced to this equinity.
Looking Forward Tuit,
Jon Awbrey
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> Douglas McDavid wrote:
> >
> > Jon --
> >
> > << Big snip >>
> >
> > ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
> >
> > | This paper is based upon the theory already established,
> > | that the function of conceptions is to reduce the manifold
> > | of sensuous impressions to unity, and that the validity of
> > | a conception consists in the impossibility of reducing the
> > | content of consciousness to unity without the introduction
> > | of it.
> > |
> > | Charles Sanders Peirce, "On a New List of Categories", 14 May 1867,
> > | In 'Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition, Vol. 2,
> > | 1867-1871', Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, 1984, page 49,
> > | Customarily cited as (CE 2, 49). Cf. 'Collected Papers', CP 1.545.
> >
> > ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
> >
> > << Little snip >>
> >
> > I don't want to put this on the list because
> > I don't want to distract you or them. But ...
> >
> > "reducing the content of consciousness to unity"
> >
> > Query: What is this, that anyone would want to do it? I've lived a long,
> > information- and experience-filled 54 years, and I have never felt a need
> > or desire to> reduce the content of consciousness to unity. I don't have
> > a clue as to what it could possibly mean. I've come across this in my
> > desultory explorations of CSP, and it seems that this was a major item
> > on the research agenda of the day.
> >
> > Reduction to unity? Sorry, I don't get it.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Doug
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> Doug,
>
> Not to worry about distracting the distraught,
> and the ONTarion Sublist is so far an idyllic
> enough place to talk about any old thing, far
> from the hue, the cry, and the madding crowd.
>
> The phrase you pick is the one where I said
> that Peirce echoes Kant, and to get what it
> means you only have to call up to your mind
> a typical moment when inquiry begins, where
> before there is sheer chaos, confusion, and
> the booming buzzing mutter of the 10^4 bits,
> a state so annoising and irritating that no
> body but no body can help to want to remote
> the self from it, just like Lake Co-Product,
> A Nice Place To Be From. To get outta here
> requires an abductive seizure of the moment,
> a grasp of the thistle, a leap of the fates,
> that will bring a Form to constellation and
> precipitation in the psyche of the affected
> agent. Thus the "reduction of the manifold
> of sensuous impressions to a unity" is just
> an act that you must persist in per-forming
> through every moment of your waking or even
> dreaming existence, to wit, to conceit some
> concept that begriffs the Many into the One.
>
> Or Sum Ding Like That ...
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
> _______________________________________________
> topicmapmail mailing list
> topicmapmail@infoloom.com
> http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤