ONT Re: Modus Ponens

[Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu>]

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤

JA = Jon Awbrey
JD = Jean-Luc Delatre

JD: 1) There exist ultimately a *perfect* all encompassing ontology that allows
       describing everything, and we have to chase for it however distant it be.

JA: the problem is not thinking it exists ---
    the problem is not having to chase it - -
    the problem is thinking one's arrived ---
    that is the semeio-conscious delirium - -
    tbat semes to be the most serious one ---
    so augur me one byte shy of an oracle - -

JD: Well, sorry, I cannot make sense of the last 3 lines.

exegesis:

pun on semio = half / semeio = sign.
connotation:  symbol = a half-token.

delirium => allusion to aphorism of hippocrates:

| delirium with laughter is a good sign.
| with seriousness it is more dangerous.

at the en-auguration of line 6, the stanza is one line short of a hexagram.
the 3-bit codes at the end of each line of verse could be used to indicate
2^3 places in a bit vector, that filled with bits would make an 8-bit byte.
at the end of the stanza, the epic bits form a hexagram, to wit, number 64.
i ching hexcode number 64 is titled "wei chi:  before completion" and says:

| fire over water:
| the image of the condition before transition.
| thus the superior man is careful
| in the differentiation of things,
| so that each finds its place.

"words of wisdom" (wow) ...

sorry, but i cannot take credit for all of the confucian.

JD: That's why I gave up discussing, for on "Sun 10 Mar 2002 09:01:33 -0500"
    you gave responses of the same vein to my arguments:

JD: Nevertheless, there must be *some* level of "unmediated intuition"
    below which it is impossible and useless (Wittgenstein) to go.

JA: Let's call a spade "a spade".
    Calling it "a formal spade" will
    not turn in into a runcible spoon,
    nor a hawk nor a handsaw for a' that.

JA: You have turned Ludovico's pragmatic trick
    into the fulcrum of the soul's absoulution,
    and the Master of the Game is hence undone,
    or is he contrary wise now so done that we
    may so facilely stick a fork in his tongue,
    and leave him spinning in his own spit in
    the pit for wit you have dug him?

now that one i thought was pretty plain:

ludwig = ludovico = master of the game, language, that is.

the bit about turning the spade minded me of the scene
with the gravedigger clown in hamlet "alas por yorick".
i am complaining that fca seems to use the instrument
of the functor "formal" to specify that a "formal cat"
is very like a dog, still in hamlet, and consequently
turns the point of ludwig's pithy gnome entirely the
wrong way around, making it an absolute dogma rather
than a contingently modest pragmatic heuristic maxim.

JD: This could be at the attribute level rather than at the object level.
    Try to explain to me what 'red' means, really try.
    Though I am not blind, you are gonna have a hard time doing that.

JA: It's black and white and read all over.

JD: I cannot take such replies for sensible answers.
    It seems that when you are cornered you try to escape rather
    than to respond, that's fine as a policy but that ends the dialog.

we are just chatting here, during a break in the axiom,
and i know what i've been doing on the field of babble
well enough that i don't have to justify my seriousness
to you or anybody else at half-time.

JA: were you thinking of 'the dispossessed'?

JD: Cannot remember exactly, there was Dragon speak and the Dragon's
    language were the original genuine language before all others.

oh, maybe 'earthsea trilogy' or 'wind's twelve quarters', but i forget, too.

CS: Nothing happens unless first a dream.

JA: and what happens second ???

JD: Work till some part of the dream comes true.
    But only *some* part.

sounds like a start ...

JD: About something else:
    I noticed that you registered on
    the Semantic Web Mailing List at

    http://www.ontoweb.org

JD: There does not seem to be much happening on that list and
    they don't even look like they maintain a mailing archive.
    So, are they alive, dead or just sleeping?

i think it was just the benchmark subgroup,
but it was a while ago, so i can't recall.

jon

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤