[xtm-wg] RE: [kmci-Virtual-Chapter] RE: Practical KM

["Paul Prueitt" <beadmaster@ontologyStream.com>]

Scott,

I have rejected Nagel's explanation of valid reductionism for reasons that I
have explained in detail.  I hope that my reasoning is not about me, or
dogmatic positions, but about some objective reality that lies out there
somewhere - caring not a bit about me or even human being-ness.

Zenkin's work on knowledge creation technologies, visual acuity, and
induction, super induction and Cantor captures my position;

http://www.ontologystream.com/IRRTest/Evaluation/ARLReport.htm

which I feel as about as advanced as it is anywhere on the Planet, right
now.

******

Future science needs to correct the deficiencies of the present science.  To
do this, science methodology might need to become stratified in a
non-reductionist fashion. (Conjecture.)

Thank you for reading my third chapter. I agree with you viewpoints as
expressed in your last note.

However, the production of value through this transformation of science will
soon be more fully recognized by the economic decision makers (my opinion).
The discussion will change as Demand-side KM value is finally appreciated
and commonly understood.  The added economic evaluations is often now talked
about in terms of the measurement of intangible assets (see Verna Allee's
work (www.vernaallee.com and others).

We, I and you and the KM community, need to tap into the content and IP
evaluation process so that we can help get the science right.  The knowledge
management technology will follow in good order soon after.

***

On a personal note (please forgive a communication of this type into the
forum - but it is relevant for non-personal reasons related to the
discussion about the functionality of economic decisions).  It is also not
so important.

***

I have done some recent work on a Latent Semantic Indexing type methodology
as applied to IP (Intellectual property) mapping.  I need a new client to
help me continue this very valuable work, but I will insist on publishing -
perhaps after patenting. (That rules out most potential clients, now does it
not?)

http://www.ontologystream.com/IRRTest/Evaluation/bead1.htm

The work I have done on this has been without compensation by those who
asked me to do the work, and now I realize (after several months of focused
effort) that compensation was never in their mind.  They wished me to work
for free, for some reason.

It seems to me, as a general systems property, to be more about ego and
control than objective economic reasoning.  Seen this , done that before.  A
systemic fault of the entire business community, I think, so no personal
criticism is made.

However, I need some help, as my economic recourses will be used up next
week. It is not a big deal, but it is as it is.  I have waited for the
business people to decide to pay for two months.  I can do no more, as I am
a scientist not a business person (I hope that is obvious to everyone..*s)

We each need to make a living, and that is all I wish to do.

So, if anyone wants to know the details of "my" new technology please call
me

703-981-2676.











To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com