ONT Re: Fwd: Ontology As Math Or Metaphysics?
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
another exchange of views along these same lines.
jon awbrey
> Subj: Riddle Of The Sphinx (ROTS)
> Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 00:14:51 -0500
> From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu>
>
> Mary Keeler wrote:
> >
> > That makes the set of relations clear, and then he
> > says (somewhere) that metaphysics is the bridge to
> > the special sciences from math, philosophy and logic.
>
> Would that be a Pons Asinorum?
> Would that be a Bridge T' Far?
>
...
>
> > Now, what if "ontologists" are (should be) doing normative science, would that
> > be essentially serving metaphysics (and therefore the rest of the sciences) by
> > investigating the implications of phenomenology (the Categories, which are
> > mathematically postulated)?
>
> Wait a minute.
>
> How does serving that which rests on the
> "rest of the sciences" (ROTS) also serve
> to stand and to wait upon these residuals?
>
> Does one who serves the Hierarch at the top
> also serve the least ones of the Hierarchy?
> It would depend a lot the precise character
> of the order that intervenes in given cases.
>
> It seems to me that we would have to think about the relationship
> between the relation of "serving" and the relation of "resting on".
>
> > In any case, I think the burden is on normative science
> > to be developed pragmatically, and that's what I think
> > can be done in collaboratory testbeds, administered
> > with the augmentation of KR technology.
>
> I do not know if I sent you a melange of my recent thoughts
> on normative science that I sent to a few select folks from
> the Peirce List. I will looksee if I can find it somewhere.
>
> Within the realm of the "pragmatic cosmos", as I call it,
> I think that the aims, the ends, and the hopeful outcomes
> of the normative sciences are to make claims to knowledge:
>
> 1. About the goods that fit our human form of life (Aesthetics),
> 2. About the ways that work to achieve these goods (Ethics),
> 3. About the signs that mark the paths to the good (Logic).
>
> Some people think that this is a far too "utilitarian" way
> to characterize the normative sciences, but the same sorts
> of people say the same sorts of things about pragmaticism.
>
> > On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Jon Awbrey wrote:
> >
> > > ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
> > >
> > > | Normative science rests largely on phenomenology and on mathematics;
> > > | Metaphysics on phenomenology and on normative science.
> > > | [CP: 1.186 (1903)]
> > >
> > >
> > > ¤ Metaphysics
> > > /|
> > > / |
> > > / |
> > > Normative Science ¤ |
> > > / \ |
> > > / \ |
> > > / \|
> > > Mathematics ¤ ¤ Phenomenology
> > >
> > > ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> Oh look!
> A creature that walks on three legs.
> It must be getting toward afternoon!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o