Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Expanding The Ontological Tree Of Knowledge

Expand Messages
  • decker150
    We have been given the ideas (from Sartre) Being-in-itself, Being-for-itself, (Heidegger) Being-in-general, Being-in-the-world, Being-alongside-useful-things,
    Message 1 of 4 , Jul 14, 2004
      We have been given the ideas (from Sartre) Being-in-itself,
      Being-for-itself, (Heidegger) Being-in-general, Being-in-the-world,
      Being-alongside-useful-things, Being-one-self, Beings-potentiality,
      Being-with-others, etc. These variations of Being indicate the
      manifold or various comportments of Being. But there is also
      sub-manifolds. What I see is an outline forming, much like any
      written composition where there is a Heading, with divisions and
      subdivisions. Being-In-General or Being-in-itself might qualify as
      the general heading, whereas Being-in-the-World and Being-with-others
      come along as divisions of the main topic. But in terms of
      organizing an explication, we may also explore subdivision or
      sub-manifold outlines, that help explore other 'aspects' of the
      meaning of Being.

      Ontology is the attempt to study and describe the structure of being,
      and from the way it appears to me, this describing of the structure
      may fall into the an organized-hierarchical-index; such as

      A General Heading: Being-in-itself (Being-in-General)

      Division 1.) Being-in-the-world
      Sub-divisions (?)

      Division 2.) Being-with-others
      Sub-divisions a,b,c...?
      a. Being-for-others
      b. Being-against-others
      c. Being-intimate-with-another
      d. Being-distant-to-others
      e. Being-communicative-with-others
      f. etc., etc.
      Division 3.) Being-alongside-useful-things
      Subvisions (?)

      Division 4.) Etc., Etc.

      This may not be the correct index, but only a trial springboard model
      for the sake of considering how the structure might be outlined as a
      knowable/organized structure.

      How are all these modes possible? In the name of Existentialism, and
      under the guiding question 'What Is The Meaning of Being?' is an
      Ontological description of these sub-manifolds worthwhile? Just
      explicating one sub-mode, such as (Being-intimate-with-others) could
      generate more leaves on the existential tree of knowledge.

      The structure expressed here is given in a topical format with
      divisions and subdivisions, following the model of an indexing mode,
      in which outlines and trees are conceptually related to the
      metaphor/paradigm (the tree-of-knowledge) and it's various branches
      (tribiutaries) divisions, etc. (however one wishes to describe the
      byfurcated growth (splitting) The pattern of a reductionism and an
      expansionism. Healthy tree's continue to produce new leaf.

      Joe
    • Amy Wing
      Dear Joe, This may be a point where our philosophical postions differ. I believe, that philosophy always begs the question-even Sartre s philosophy.
      Message 2 of 4 , Jul 14, 2004
        Dear Joe,

        This may be a point where our philosophical postions
        differ. I believe, that philosophy always begs the
        question-even Sartre's philosophy. Philosophy, in my
        opinion, is used in order to justify our own beliefs,
        values, and existence, although that doesn't mean that
        it is not valid. What I would caution here though, in
        relation to my own personal values and beliefs, is
        what it is that you are naturalizing; ie: an
        "organized-hierarchical-index". I think, at this
        place, you are begging the question of there being
        implied, in at leaste a few of these philosophies that
        you have mentioned, a hierachal ordering of things;
        therefore it is being naturalized that there just is
        one, - or -, it could be that you in fact take
        ownership of the creation of one. I do not claim to
        understand the intention of your post, and for the
        most part it is very interesting, with divisions and
        sub-divisions to break things down into a way that
        these constructs can be understood. But my two cents
        is that depending on contexts, heiracrchies shift;
        meaning that there is no natural or permentent
        hierarchy; therefore there is *no* heirachy that has
        to exist at all, from the point of view of the
        individual - so long as a heirachy is not *created*.
        With that being said, I believe that what you are
        calling heirachal is the fact the one thing is
        dependent on something else for it's own existence,
        but this does not necessarily, in my opion, equal a
        natural superiority one way or the other. I can't tell
        anyone how to think about things, but - thinking - and
        - language - are two key factors that contribute to
        the way world structures are played out. And
        heiracrhies alway start out harmless, but history
        teaches us that "leaves" that they produce are posion
        to many many people.

        I have to say though that from what I have been
        reading economics has played the main role in the
        oppression of peoples, and philosohy is just what
        justifies or unjustifies our importance within the
        economic structure; wherever our economic postion is
        in relation to others.

        Thanks,

        Amy

        --- decker150 <decker150@...> wrote: > We have
        been given the ideas (from Sartre)
        > Being-in-itself,
        > Being-for-itself, (Heidegger) Being-in-general,
        > Being-in-the-world,
        > Being-alongside-useful-things, Being-one-self,
        > Beings-potentiality,
        > Being-with-others, etc. These variations of Being
        > indicate the
        > manifold or various comportments of Being. But
        > there is also
        > sub-manifolds. What I see is an outline forming,
        > much like any
        > written composition where there is a Heading, with
        > divisions and
        > subdivisions. Being-In-General or Being-in-itself
        > might qualify as
        > the general heading, whereas Being-in-the-World and
        > Being-with-others
        > come along as divisions of the main topic. But in
        > terms of
        > organizing an explication, we may also explore
        > subdivision or
        > sub-manifold outlines, that help explore other
        > 'aspects' of the
        > meaning of Being.
        >
        > Ontology is the attempt to study and describe the
        > structure of being,
        > and from the way it appears to me, this describing
        > of the structure
        > may fall into the an organized-hierarchical-index;
        > such as
        >
        > A General Heading: Being-in-itself
        > (Being-in-General)
        >
        > Division 1.) Being-in-the-world
        > Sub-divisions (?)
        >
        > Division 2.) Being-with-others
        > Sub-divisions a,b,c...?
        > a. Being-for-others
        > b. Being-against-others
        > c. Being-intimate-with-another
        > d. Being-distant-to-others
        > e. Being-communicative-with-others
        > f. etc., etc.
        > Division 3.) Being-alongside-useful-things
        > Subvisions (?)
        >
        > Division 4.) Etc., Etc.
        >
        > This may not be the correct index, but only a trial
        > springboard model
        > for the sake of considering how the structure might
        > be outlined as a
        > knowable/organized structure.
        >
        > How are all these modes possible? In the name of
        > Existentialism, and
        > under the guiding question 'What Is The Meaning of
        > Being?' is an
        > Ontological description of these sub-manifolds
        > worthwhile? Just
        > explicating one sub-mode, such as
        > (Being-intimate-with-others) could
        > generate more leaves on the existential tree of
        > knowledge.
        >
        > The structure expressed here is given in a topical
        > format with
        > divisions and subdivisions, following the model of
        > an indexing mode,
        > in which outlines and trees are conceptually related
        > to the
        > metaphor/paradigm (the tree-of-knowledge) and it's
        > various branches
        > (tribiutaries) divisions, etc. (however one wishes
        > to describe the
        > byfurcated growth (splitting) The pattern of a
        > reductionism and an
        > expansionism. Healthy tree's continue to produce
        > new leaf.
        >
        > Joe
        >
        >

        =====
        "Beauty's where you find it" Madonna

        ______________________________________________________________________
        Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
      • decker150
        Hi Amy, thanks for you remarks. I will respond in kind to several points you made. Amy: This may be a point where our philosophical postions differ. I
        Message 3 of 4 , Jul 14, 2004
          Hi Amy, thanks for you remarks. I will respond in kind to several
          points you made.

          Amy: This may be a point where our philosophical postions differ. I
          believe, that philosophy always begs the question-even Sartre's
          philosophy. Philosophy, in my opinion, is used in order to justify
          our own beliefs, values, and existence, although that doesn't mean
          that it is not valid.

          Joe: Yes, and it is Ok to differ, to explore the subject we both
          enjoy. Of course, any time a philsopher sets out to describe the
          world and the human condition, (s)he expresses an mere opinion.
          Some more valid than others, as you point out. But in my thinking,
          and I do struggle to express 'things as they actually are', even
          though the expression itself is always as I 'think' things are.
          Perception always meddles with reality. But this is not limited to
          philsophical meddlings, the whole world is being meddled with every
          day, every second. Culture is the greatest kind of meddling.

          When we express our philosophical views, it always entails
          describing them through a biased mindeye view that is uniquely mine
          or yours. And so, this is an opinion, as you clearly pointed out.
          My intent, and it is sincere, is to strive toward the best view I
          can muster up; that is, to tell it as correctly as I can, as it
          really is. But any view may be dismissed because it is just that,
          only a human view. One writer in semantic said "the map is not the
          territory". Ontology, Phenomenology, in fact any '-logy' is just
          a 'map' and maps improve over time with changes in how we interpret
          reality. Even in science, tested theories and experiments have been
          overturned many times by new discoveries. But even if you and I
          were sitting out on my back porch, looking at the sunset, describing
          what it looked like; each of us would only be expressing 'an
          opinion', no? But, the point I would offer is this: The fact that
          philosophy is opinionated does not mean that it is necessarily false
          or incorrect. The purpose of debate, polemics, the dialectic is to
          push the interpretations forward through the thesis and antithesis,
          to arrive at a better combinatory synthesis in the progress. But
          one really has to outdo the other in this kind of critical
          progress. I do not expect people to read my post in any other way
          than with a concerned critical eye. I am not merely looking for
          generous readers just to massage my ego.

          Amy: I do not claim to understand the intention of your post, and
          for the most part it is very interesting, with divisions and
          > sub-divisions to break things down into a way that these
          constructs can be understood.

          Joe: Right, very good. That is what we are striving for in our
          post, to be understood. Word and meaning are the aspects of our
          humanity, it is our attempt to explore our very real condition. Yet,
          we are not attempting to 'be a science'. Philosophy is in the
          Humanities, it is not even a Social Science, much less a Natural
          Science. Philosophy is something like poetry, but a little more
          rigid.

          Amy: But my two cents is that depending on contexts, heirarchies
          shift; meaning that there is no natural or permentent hierarchy;
          therefore there is *no* heirachy that has to exist at all, from the
          point of view of the individual - so long as a heirachy is not
          *created*. With that being said, I believe that what you are
          > calling heirarchal is the fact the one thing is dependent on
          something else for it's own existence, but this does not
          necessarily, in my opinion, equal a natural superiority one way or
          the other.

          Joe: My assumption is that the world I am in is predictable, and
          that there are conditions that remain the same and do not shift
          about nilly-willy. Part of the goal in reductionism is to sort
          things out, searching to identify differences in one thing from
          another thing, to look for patterns, and to strive to locate the
          irreducible features that seem to not lead any further. Just as
          they have done by reducing the material world down to the atom. But
          then later on, scientist discovered the subatomic compotents of the
          electron and neutron in a tiny orbit. And then came quarks, etc. I
          would imagine that Existentialism and Ontology still has something
          hidden, undiscovered. All I'm really trying to do, is organize my
          thoughts into an outline, so like Hanson and Gretle, I will not get
          lost in the forest of ideas. We humans do that, strive for some
          kind of order out of the chaos.

          Amy: And heiracrhies alway start out harmless, but history
          > teaches us that "leaves" that they produce are posion to many many
          people.

          Joe: That's true, there is such a thing as a "dangerous idea".

          Enjoy - Joe

          >
          > --- decker150 <decker150@y...> wrote: > We have
          > been given the ideas (from Sartre)
          > > Being-in-itself,
          > > Being-for-itself, (Heidegger) Being-in-general,
          > > Being-in-the-world,
          > > Being-alongside-useful-things, Being-one-self,
          > > Beings-potentiality,
          > > Being-with-others, etc. These variations of Being
          > > indicate the
          > > manifold or various comportments of Being. But
          > > there is also
          > > sub-manifolds. What I see is an outline forming,
          > > much like any
          > > written composition where there is a Heading, with
          > > divisions and
          > > subdivisions. Being-In-General or Being-in-itself
          > > might qualify as
          > > the general heading, whereas Being-in-the-World and
          > > Being-with-others
          > > come along as divisions of the main topic. But in
          > > terms of
          > > organizing an explication, we may also explore
          > > subdivision or
          > > sub-manifold outlines, that help explore other
          > > 'aspects' of the
          > > meaning of Being.
          > >
          > > Ontology is the attempt to study and describe the
          > > structure of being,
          > > and from the way it appears to me, this describing
          > > of the structure
          > > may fall into the an organized-hierarchical-index;
          > > such as
          > >
          > > A General Heading: Being-in-itself
          > > (Being-in-General)
          > >
          > > Division 1.) Being-in-the-world
          > > Sub-divisions (?)
          > >
          > > Division 2.) Being-with-others
          > > Sub-divisions a,b,c...?
          > > a. Being-for-others
          > > b. Being-against-others
          > > c. Being-intimate-with-another
          > > d. Being-distant-to-others
          > > e. Being-communicative-with-others
          > > f. etc., etc.
          > > Division 3.) Being-alongside-useful-things
          > > Subvisions (?)
          > >
          > > Division 4.) Etc., Etc.
          > >
          > > This may not be the correct index, but only a trial
          > > springboard model
          > > for the sake of considering how the structure might
          > > be outlined as a
          > > knowable/organized structure.
          > >
          > > How are all these modes possible? In the name of
          > > Existentialism, and
          > > under the guiding question 'What Is The Meaning of
          > > Being?' is an
          > > Ontological description of these sub-manifolds
          > > worthwhile? Just
          > > explicating one sub-mode, such as
          > > (Being-intimate-with-others) could
          > > generate more leaves on the existential tree of
          > > knowledge.
          > >
          > > The structure expressed here is given in a topical
          > > format with
          > > divisions and subdivisions, following the model of
          > > an indexing mode,
          > > in which outlines and trees are conceptually related
          > > to the
          > > metaphor/paradigm (the tree-of-knowledge) and it's
          > > various branches
          > > (tribiutaries) divisions, etc. (however one wishes
          > > to describe the
          > > byfurcated growth (splitting) The pattern of a
          > > reductionism and an
          > > expansionism. Healthy tree's continue to produce
          > > new leaf.
          > >
          > > Joe
          > >
          > >
          >
          > =====
          > "Beauty's where you find it" Madonna
          >
          >
          _____________________________________________________________________
          _
          > Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
        • Amy
          Hi Joe, I am so glad that you took what I had to say the way I intended it. I think that the formation of the structure that you are seeing does have a
          Message 4 of 4 , Jul 15, 2004
            Hi Joe,

            I am so glad that you took what I had to say the way I intended it. I
            think that the formation of the structure that you are seeing does
            have a heuristic capcity to create new dementions of exploration.

            All the best!

            Amy
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.