RE: [humanmarkup-comment] on the Manhattan project for the Knowle dgeSciences

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

<opinion>Because there will be cases where no values are held in 
common and there is nothing to negotiate except the 
burial rituals.  Anyone flying airliners into buildings 
or sending young girls strapped with bombs to target 
non-combatants has little of interest to say.  They 
are not to be negotiated with until a set of common 
values can be identified along with legitimate 
representatives of those groups that share those values.

These things proceed in phases.  The first and most 
immediate issue is to prevent attacks.  So the first 
reaction is shallow by design:  detection and elimination 
of parties threatening the non-combatants or seeking 
by such means to redefine these as combatants.

The second phase and the one the technology 
can help is understanding root causes to evolve a 
strategy of modification.   This may involve negotiation 
and it may involve taking direct control of the system 
of rewards and punishments, that is, the behavioral 
modification feedback loop itself.  I agree that without
such understanding, this is not possible.</opinion>

But this is overfocused on one topic.  HumanML was originated 
by people who were interested in a broader set of applications, 
so we have to get on with the basic work of the primary 
schema, that being, our immediate product.

len

From: paul [mailto:beadmaster@ontologystream.com]

I repeat:

"While of interest to delve
into the deeper meaning of that notification, this will not prevent
the act itself."

and I question this directly.

The concerns of the terrorist ARE the causes of the terrorism.  Period.  To
understand and to eliminate the concerns of the terrorist will reduce to
close to zero the motivation for terrorism.  Yes?  One will always have
random acts of violence, but one emergence will bring a atomic bomb into New
York city and ignite this.

One way to do this is to kill all of the terrorist.  The other way is to
look deep into our social practices and see that in some cases the concerns
are about how we have treated other cultures.

How can one mark-up the scenarios that lead to the negotiation between
cultures (and viewpoints)?

Is this the purpose of the Human Mark - up standard?








----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>