(first time that I have an exchange with you, so: *greetings!)*
I am a bit negative towards ontology, because it postulates an 'existence'
to describe and such is hard to identify. A second difficulty arises in a
descriptive view of a dynamic (constantly changing) world, most likely a
"snapshot" of one stage in the change.
whether X exists? my answer is a "yes", because in your mind (and now in
mine as well) it does.
Be it virtual, physical(?), mental, or whatever.
While still active in my job, I always asked a co-worker to check my texts I
wrote (in this 5th language of mine). He pointed to some words maybe
formulated by my linguistic freedom - and asked:* Does such a word
exist?*My response was: did it make sense to you what it may mean?
if yes, it *does* now, be it in your dictionary of yesterday, or not.
We face an unlimited (dynamic) complexity of a world and I do not condone
'human' restrictons towards its content did we know about it yesterday, or
not. Open semiotics. I consider 'everything' as the unlimited relations
(relational changes?) among unlimited content in an unlimited complexity -
known only in part by the so far enriched cognitive inventory for us -
result of our epistemic additions starting with the first conscious
'molecule' (or even just with a hint) IOW of the evolution (that is the
historical dynamics of the world's complexity). I try to speak about it in
You wrote: "*In the subject of this group"* a sometime hard-to-define term.
Thanks to Wei Dai, the group condones a wide variety of topics - domains
what makes it interesting and educational.
Thanks for your views what I see facing a certain direction. I try to expand
On 8/31/10, Sami Perttu <sami.per...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been suspecting that some problems of ontology can be solved
> nicely if we practise a little therapeutic philosophy first.
> I'm claiming that when we talk about existence, for instance "X
> exists", then we should always qualify it with base set Y as in "X
> exists in Y". And that unqualified use, as done in metaphysics (and in
> the subject of this group), is an ontological fallacy - existence "in
> the general sense" is meaningless.
> This reduces the nebulous question "does X exist?" to the problem of
> finding a suitable base set Y. Thus a seemingly fundamental question
> is resolved to a logical/linguistic misstep.
> People often seem to think that to exist, X has to have the quality of
> existing, but we can get rid of that in this way, simplify our
> thinking and gain some peace of mind.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at