I read Kant's "Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics" as a sophomore philosophy major but I don't claim to be a philosopher.
Frank ---- Frank Wimberly www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 Phone (505) 670-9918 On Thu, Jul 5, 2018, 2:16 PM Prof David West <profw...@fastmail.fm> wrote: > Hi Nick, > > I write this from Kloster Irsee, Bavaria. A beautiful, mostly restored old > monastery that was a THE civil authority in the Middle Ages with about 20 > villages and 3K tax paying villagers. Also an "insane asylum" and a minor > part of Hitler's extermination program — about 2,000 inmates transported > for death or killed on site. Of course now it is a conference center and I > am attending EuroPLoP. From here to Istanbul then Amsterdam, then home at > end of July. > > I know a philosopher, mostly his expertise is in Asian Philosophy but he > did read Kant's Critique in high school and is quite familiar with most of > the postmodernists (read Lacan, but not in Paris). > > Harman: > > 1) He, and I, pretty much equate ontology with metaphysics - > differentiation of "Reality" into discrete entities and giving each a name > — plus, very importantly, stating which named things are "real" and which > are not. E.g. Atoms are 'real', unicorns are not. BTW, "pure mathematics is > not metaphysically 'real' in this context. > > 2) Harman uses the label "object" for those entities that are both > differentiated and 'real'. He expressly imbues his own conception of > objects with the sense/quality of that from object oriented programming > (circa Alan Kay, but not since then) because both are differentiated on the > basis of behavior— how they act, what they do. > > 3) Absent a shared ontology - discussion becomes difficult if not real. > Harman makes this point with regard politics, "fake news" and Trump. > > 4) A lack of shared ontology is what doomed object-oriented programming. > One side, always a minority, deemed that only those objects defined by > their behavior were 'real'. The other side deemed only those objects > reduced to data structures or aggregates of op-codes were 'real'. A > generalization, mostly accurate, one-side believed that only that within > the computer was 'real' the other only that outside the computer was real. > Objects were supposed to provide a share vocabulary — a shared ontology — > that bridged that gap. Didn't happen. > > 5) I am interested in ontology on two fronts: one, pragmatic, how an > "ontology tool" would facilitate the design and development of "natural > systems" — defined as the antithesis of the "artificial systems" built by > computer scientists, software engineers, IT professionals et. al,, the past > fifty years; and two, the possibility of an ontology for the mystical > and/or "altered states of consciousness." > > davew > > > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018, at 8:35 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: > > Ah, David. It WAS you. I might have known. (};-/) > > > > Has anybody else read it? > > > > I guess one question I might have concerns any relation between Object > Oriented Ontology and Object Oriented Programming. Harman, disclaims much > of a relation (pp 10-11), but I’m betting you see one, and even that it’s > important to you. > > > > I am also wondering, as I have often done, what you experts make of the > word “ontology.” I have no idea what it means. Never have. It is a > deeply philosophical word yet some philosophically skeptical computer folks > that I know (*ahem, ahem**) seem to use it. > > > > Where are you David? Are you “in country” or did we lose you to Europe? > Have you become a Eurokid? Are you reading Lacan and sipping espresso in > the shade of the plane trees *en la Place de la Sorbonne.* > > > > Great to be in touch! > > > > Nick > > > > *Who am I to cast the first stone, Owen? > > > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Prof > David West > *Sent:* Thursday, July 05, 2018 2:59 AM > *To:* friam@redfish.com > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Object Oriented Ontology > > > > Nick > > > > Twas I that brought the book to your attention and I have read it twice > and am using it as a foundation for writing a chapter in my Natural Systems > Design book. > > > > Happy to discuss and perhaps answer some of your questions and help you > find the path through the forest. > > > > davew > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018, at 7:51 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > One of you [wretches], assigned me this book > <https://www.amazon.com/Object-Oriented-Ontology-New-Theory-Everything/dp/0241269156/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1530754578&sr=8-1-fkmr1&keywords=Graham+Harmon+Object+Oriented> > for a little light summer reading before I left SF in March. It was a > seductive assignment. In the first place, the book is a little book. I > LIKE little books. Cheap and easy to carry. In the second place, as I > read around in it, I see echoes of Peirce in its monism and realism and > fascination with metaphors (aka “signs”?). Every chapter begins in an > ingratiating introduction that gives promise of progress in the rational > construction of a complex idea. > > > > There my praise ends. I have started all the chapters with the greatest > of good will and have gotten thoroughly lost in every one. > > > > I deeply suspect that whichever one of you [wretches] who assigned it to > me has never read it from cover to cover. > > > > SO: Will you now do that with me? And will others join? It would be > best if we could snare a few philosophers to join us because the author > does seem to be rather deeply into philosophy, both post modern and the > other kind. > > > > It’s hard to believe that it has *nothing* to do with object oriented > programing, but it may not. > > > > Fess up! > > > > NIck > > > > > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
