Re: Idealism vs Materialism: universal formal ontology
"azamat abdoullaev" <[email protected]> Sat, 2 Apr 2005 12:05:58 +0300
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.misc.ontology.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <000f01c53763$2f6f23f0$9b028d0a@HOMEPC> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C5377C.546D9FB0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Idealism vs Materialism : Idealism and the Differentiating ElementDear =
Chris,
Thanks for your comments and references.=20
Perusing your web pages, a reason of some delay with the answer, I found =
myself at one on many issues. Nevertheless, you misplacement of =
ontological categories may become a serious obstacle in your endeavor to =
'trace a development path from the 'big bang' to consciousness through' =
and 'to flesh-out all of the possible interpretations of reality'. First =
and foremost, your 'fundamental template dichotomy of =
differentiate/integrate' is sprung from a confounding claim that =
opposition and complementarity are forms of dichotomy. This contravenes =
to the canons of ontology where the dichotomy as a bipartite and =
bifurcate division is a kind of oppositeness, altogether with its other =
forms: 1.interdependent correlatives; 2.contraries (the disjoint =
contrarieties without intermediates and differing in kind, like odd and =
even, or with intermediates differing in degree, like white, gray, =
black); 3.contradictories (contradiction as dialectic, antagonism, =
complementarity, contradictoriness of propositions, affirmation and =
negation).=20
Strictly speaking, ideal dichotomy is always composed of positive and =
negative terms, which describe not a kind or a class, like the contrary =
opposites, but rather the whole universe. And the reason why it was not =
recognized useful for the exhaustive division of a class (or a kind) is =
that the resulting negative opposite is indefinable and undividable, and =
so must be discarded in a series of divisions. As the illustration, the =
dual opposite of 'intelligent', 'not-intelligent', applies to =
everything, all the things in the world which are not intelligent, =
animals, objects, colors, etc.
As a consequence, your fundamental oppositeness of Sameness =
(integrations, unary, symmetry, collectivism, where, consciousness, A&B, =
Bose-Einstein condensate) and Difference (differentiations, binary, =
asymmetry, individualism, what, A XOR B, fermions) is hardly a =
dichotomous relationship. Which is rather 'sameness' and 'not-sameness'. =
Besides, more correct to oppose identity (sameness) to diversity =
(otherness) and similarity (likeness, resemblance) to difference, for =
the combination of the first two pairs determines the degrees of =
likeness and difference. That is, to get the difference, one need to =
compose sameness and diversity, whereas you start your model of reality =
from sameness and difference. =20
I suggest a better phraseology and expression may essentially contribute =
to a better understanding of your otherwise original metaphorical =
interpretation of such crucial issues as the individual and the =
universal, the one and the many, the same and the other.=20
Regards,
Azamat Abdoullaev
http://www.eis.com.cy=20
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Chris Lofting=20
To: 'SUO WG'=20
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 1:58 PM
Subject: RE: Idealism vs Materialism: universal formal ontology
Azamat, you wrote:
"As I have noticed in my communication with Chris, dual thinking, the =
tendency to classify things into two opposed classes, the damnation of =
all metaphysical argumentation, makes all the confusion here again."
No. There are TWO perspectives operating. ONE is based on =
exaggerations from a base, what I have labeled as "asymmetric" =
dichotomies. These focus on identifying SAMENESS across DIFFERENCES. =
These will give you a spectrum format in expression - power law stuff. =
The passage 'along' the dimension that develops from this is a passage =
from vague to crisp, local to universal. Each point in this hierarchy is =
a point for analyisis of DIFFERENCE from SAMENESS and as such we use =
opposition to analyse - this gives us Gaussian distributions, the =
dynamics of +1/-1 as compared to those of worthless/priceless.
Due to the PRECISION focus of our brains, so as we differentiate we =
move into perspectives that are 'opposites' oriented, we are focusing on =
a particular point on the spectrum derived from asymmetric perspectives. =
Our brains do this 'naturally'.
The price of high precision thinking is the pushing away of 'others' =
to make things 'clear' - this clarity is PARTS oriented when seen from =
the position of our species... gets into what I have pointed out before =
re XOR/AND dynamics - and is experienced in such areas as basic sensory =
paradox processing.
Understand these dynamics and out pops the properties and methods of =
all categorisations where the universals created then need local context =
to give them some colour.
As a dichotomy is recursed so it develops into a continuum where we =
can no longer detect 'difference'. THAT becomes the background upon =
which we then try to impose structures - that background is not a =
'tabular rasa', it has the structure of patterns of =
differentiating/integrating such that the labels we create will reflect =
what is beneath them: meaning in the form of vague 'feelings' of =
'something' where the precision is in the label that links the =
universals to a local context, and in doing so causes the generation of =
a lexicon.
The differentiation element of the differentiating/integrating =
dichotomy is the 'discrete' end of the process and will focus on =
objects, wholes and parts. The integrating element is the 'continuous' =
end of the process and will focus on relationships.
The asymmetric nature of the dichotomy shows objects being derived =
from relationships (or the 'space inbetween' objects - as fermions are =
derived from bosons). Focus on the objects and out will pop 'opposites' =
in the form of DIFFERENCE from SAMENESS (fermionic perspectives - =
electron/positron pair where the difference is in the charge).
If we focus on the 'boson' end of things, so the focus on differences =
in energy levels reflected in differences in temperature give us the =
'hierarchy' we see emerge from a BEC where the BEC is representitive of =
the 'integrated whole', no distinctions possible, and as we raise =
temperature so fragmentation occurs, allowing for identifying SAMENESS =
from DIFFERENCES. This SAME *dynamic* operates in our brains and =
reflects the overall dynamics of differentiating/integrating - same =
patterns across all scales of analysis.
(for some maths re representation of all of this at the abstract level =
of 'differentiating/integrating' see =
http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/symmetry.html)
Chris.
------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C5377C.546D9FB0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=EF=BB=BF<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o =3D =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD><TITLE>Idealism vs =
Materialism : Idealism and the Differentiating Element</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY dir=3Dltr bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Dear Chris,</FONT>
<P><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Thanks =
for your=20
comments and references. </FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Perusing =
your web=20
pages, a reason of some delay with the answer, I found myself =
at one=20
on many issues. Nevertheless, you misplacement of ontological categories =
may=20
become a serious obstacle in <FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
size=3D3>your endeavor=20
to 'trace a development path from the 'big bang' to consciousness =
through' and=20
'to flesh-out all of the possible interpretations of =
reality'.</FONT> <FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3>First and foremost, your 'fundamental =
template=20
dichotomy of differentiate/integrate' is sprung from a confounding claim =
that=20
<FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>o</FONT></FONT>pposition and complementarity =
are forms=20
of dichotomy. This contravenes to the canons of ontology where the =
dichotomy as=20
a bipartite and bifurcate division is a kind of oppositeness, altogether =
with=20
its other forms:</FONT></SPAN><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2> 1.interdependent correlatives; 2.contraries (the disjoint =
contrarieties without intermediates and differing in kind, like odd and =
even, or=20
with intermediates differing in degree, like white, gray, black);=20
3.contradictories (contradiction as dialectic, antagonism, =
complementarity,=20
contradictoriness of propositions, affirmation and negation). =
</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Strictly =
speaking,=20
ideal dichotomy is always composed of positive and =
negative terms,=20
which describe not a kind or a class, like the contrary =
opposites, but=20
rather the whole universe. And the reason why it was not recognized =
useful=20
for the exhaustive division of a class (or a kind) is that the resulting =
negative opposite is indefinable and undividable, and=20
so must be discarded in a series of divisions. As the illustration, =
the=20
dual opposite of 'intelligent', 'not-intelligent', applies=20
to everything, all the things in the world which are not =
intelligent,=20
animals, objects, colors, etc.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>As a =
consequence,=20
your fundamental oppositeness of Sameness (integrations, =
unary,=20
symmetry, collectivism, where, consciousness, A&B, Bose-Einstein=20
condensate) and Difference (differentiations, binary, asymmetry,=20
individualism, what, A XOR B, fermions) is hardly a dichotomous=20
relationship. Which is rather 'sameness' and 'not-sameness'. =
Besides,=20
more correct to oppose identity (sameness) to diversity (otherness) and=20
similarity (likeness, resemblance) to difference, for the =
combination of=20
the first two pairs determines the degrees of likeness and difference. =
That is,=20
to get the difference, one need to compose sameness and diversity, =
whereas you=20
start your model of reality from sameness and=20
difference. </FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I suggest =
a better=20
phraseology and expression may essentially contribute to a better =
understanding=20
of your otherwise original metaphorical interpretation of such=20
crucial issues as the individual and the universal, the one and the =
many,=20
the same and the other. </FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>Regards,</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Azamat=20
Abdoullaev</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"">http://www.eis.com.cy</A></FONT> </SPAN></P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A [email protected]=20
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">Chris Lofting</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
[email protected]=20
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">'SUO WG'</A> =
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 30, 2005 =
1:58=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: Idealism vs =
Materialism:=20
universal formal ontology</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D060340810-30032005>Azamat, you wrote:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D060340810-30032005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D060340810-30032005>"As =
I have=20
noticed in my communication with Chris, dual thinking, the =
tendency=20
to classify things into two opposed classes, the damnation =
of all=20
metaphysical argumentation, makes all the confusion here=20
again."</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D060340810-30032005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D060340810-30032005>No. =
There are TWO=20
perspectives operating. ONE is based on exaggerations from a base, =
what I have=20
labeled as "asymmetric" dichotomies. These focus on =
identifying SAMENESS=20
across DIFFERENCES. These will give you a spectrum format in =
expression -=20
power law stuff. The passage 'along' the dimension that develops from =
this is=20
a passage from vague to crisp, local to universal. Each point in this=20
hierarchy is a point for analyisis of DIFFERENCE from SAMENESS and as =
such we=20
use opposition to analyse - this gives us Gaussian distributions, the =
dynamics=20
of +1/-1 as compared to those of =
worthless/priceless.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D060340810-30032005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D060340810-30032005>Due =
to the=20
PRECISION focus of our brains, so as we differentiate we move into=20
perspectives that are 'opposites' oriented, we are focusing on a =
particular=20
point on the spectrum derived from asymmetric perspectives. Our brains =
do this=20
'naturally'.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D060340810-30032005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D060340810-30032005>The =
price of high=20
precision thinking is the pushing away of 'others' to make things =
'clear' -=20
this clarity is PARTS oriented when seen from the position of our =
species...=20
gets into what I have pointed out before re XOR/AND dynamics - and is=20
experienced in such areas as basic sensory paradox=20
processing.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D060340810-30032005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D060340810-30032005>Understand these=20
dynamics and out pops the properties and methods of all =
categorisations where=20
the universals created then need local context to give them some=20
colour.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D060340810-30032005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D060340810-30032005>As a =
dichotomy is=20
recursed so it develops into a continuum where we can no longer detect =
'difference'. THAT becomes the background upon which we then try to =
impose=20
structures - that background is not a 'tabular rasa', it has the =
structure of=20
patterns of differentiating/integrating such that the labels we create =
will=20
reflect what is beneath them: meaning in the form of vague 'feelings' =
of=20
'something' where the precision is in the label that links the =
universals to a=20
local context, and in doing so causes the generation of a=20
lexicon.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D060340810-30032005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D060340810-30032005>The=20
differentiation element of the differentiating/integrating dichotomy =
is the=20
'discrete' end of the process and will focus on objects, wholes and =
parts. The=20
integrating element is the 'continuous' end of the process and will =
focus on=20
relationships.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D060340810-30032005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D060340810-30032005>The =
asymmetric=20
nature of the dichotomy shows objects being derived from relationships =
(or the=20
'space inbetween' objects - as fermions are derived from bosons). =
Focus on the=20
objects and out will pop 'opposites' in the form of DIFFERENCE from =
SAMENESS=20
(fermionic perspectives - electron/positron pair where the difference =
is in=20
the charge).</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D060340810-30032005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D060340810-30032005>If =
we focus on the=20
'boson' end of things, so the focus on differences in energy levels =
reflected=20
in differences in temperature give us the 'hierarchy' we see emerge =
from a BEC=20
where the BEC is representitive of the 'integrated whole', no =
distinctions=20
possible, and as we raise temperature so fragmentation occurs, =
allowing for=20
identifying SAMENESS from DIFFERENCES. This SAME *dynamic* =
operates in=20
our brains and reflects the overall dynamics of =
differentiating/integrating -=20
same patterns across all scales of analysis.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D060340810-30032005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D060340810-30032005>(for =
some maths re=20
representation of all of this at the abstract level of=20
'differentiating/integrating' see <A=20
=
href=3D"http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/symmetry.html">http://ww=
w.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/symmetry.html</A>)</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D060340810-30032005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D060340810-30032005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D060340810-30032005>Chris.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
=
class=3D060340810-30032005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY>=
</HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C5377C.546D9FB0--