RE: [topicmaps-comment] Notions have existence .....

["Seidl, Andy" <Andy.Seidl@Starbase.com>]

Title: RE: [topicmaps-comment] Notions have existence .....

| Sorry, I think I am going to repeat myself, but I'm amazed to see
| on that forum that kind of ontological debate, in the most ancient
| sense of it : "does unameit exist?" "what is existence?" etc. Those
| respectable (even if, as far as I am concerned, totally meaningless)
| interrogations are completely off-topic when it comes to topic maps
| use or understanding.

Well, yes, that was my point, though you made it much more clearly
and concisely that I.  My intent was to suggest that all things (and
all notions) might exist independently of the mind; or, they might
not.  Regardless, The Truth in these matters is inaccessible to us
so we should not worry about it, except as intellectual
entertainment--which it very much is.

  -- fas

-----Original Message-----
From: Bernard Vatant [mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com]
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 18:37
To: topicmaps-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [topicmaps-comment] Notions have existence .....

Hmm ... Can't resist to jump in there ...

Sorry, I think I am going to repeat myself, but I'm amazed to see
on that forum that kind of ontological debate, in the most ancient
sense of it : "does unameit exist?" "what is existence?" etc. Those
respectable (even if, as far as I am concerned, totally meaningless)
interrogations are completely off-topic when it comes to topic maps
use or understanding.

The only problem is "do we agree we speak about the same
thing?". If we agree, that's all we need for efficient information (and
maybe knowledge) interchange etc etc (see a recent post about it)
Whether the "thing" exists or not, or even to know if the question of
its existence is meaningful, is pointless.

There are terabytes of information, and heaps of knowledge about
Santa Claus. If you want to answer a kid wondering if and how
people deal with Santa Claus in France, you may have to know
they call it overthere "Père Noël", but yes, they refer to the same
old guy browsing the Christmas night with his reindeers. OK. And
as soon as you have agreed, you can exchange those terabytes of
information about this (non-existing?) being. Maybe the kid believes
he's existing, and you don't. Pointless. That does not interfere with
your common capacity of non-ambiguous conversation.

Another example: I'm completely agnostic (as far as religion is
concerned at least, and in many other domains), but I've been
raised in a Christian environment and culture, have some notions
on Judaism and Islam, and some good acquaintance with
Buddhism and Hinduism. I can exchange on many religious
subjects with religious people, and when I listen to J.S. Bach's
Missa in B, I know what it's all about when I hear "Kyrie" or "Gloria"
or "Credo". The absolute existence, non-existence, ontological
essence of God has nothing to do with this conversation capacity.

Santa Claus, God, Quantum Emptiness, Silence, Blacness ...
exist *as subjects of conversation* as soon as we speak about
them, which has been done much for any of those. And that's
exactly what is needed to be the subject of a topic.

And the question of knowing if it is relevant or not to talk about
them is itself another subject we can talk about :))

Ontological Greetings

Bernard

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