If you look at chemistry for example, you do have the up/down notation for the four elements resting on the idea that fire and air strive to go up while water and earth go down plus the extra line. In the process of discovering atoms, chemists created notation to represent those. The periodic system is a development of notation for the clear ontology of chemistry. Various different notation were developed in chemistry to be able to represent the molecules. For that you need a clear ontology of the molecules.
Musical notation rests on the concepts like notes being ontologically very clearly defined.
If you have the international phonetic alphabet (IPA), it’s notation rests on an ontology of consonants having a place of articulation (where in the vocal tract the consonant is made Examples: bilabial, dental, alveolar, palatal, velar, glottal) and a manner of articulation (how the airflow is shaped or obstructed Examples: plosive, nasal, trill, fricative, approximant, lateral approximant).
Interestingly, modern text-to-speech systems often internally derivate from the international phonetic alphabet, so that ontology is a bit more arbitrary than the ontology for different kinds of atoms. Different languages also express the same IPA sound slightly differently. Yet, if you for example look at the conlanging community they do use IPA and the ontology on which it is build.
If you take a post-1960 new notation like the notation for mental processes laid out in The Emprint Method by Leslie Cameron-Bandler, Michael Lebeau and David Gordon in 1985, that does come with a ontology backing it.
Leverage Research charting could be seen as another post-1960 notation that comes out of the ontology of Leverage Research for beliefs. I haven’t interacted directly with Leverage around charting, but I would expect that Geoff, would agree with that description.
Even when you could have a scientific discourse build around both notations, both of those notations didn’t really find adoption. As far as I’m aware post-1960 academic psychologists did not come up with something similar as either of those two projects and I do think that their relationship to ontology is a cause of that. Physicalism does seem to me like a good culprit to blame for it. Geoff and Cameron-Bandler aren’t physicalist.
Thanks for the elaboration. Do you have historical examples of new ontology unlocking new notation?
If you look at chemistry for example, you do have the up/down notation for the four elements resting on the idea that fire and air strive to go up while water and earth go down plus the extra line. In the process of discovering atoms, chemists created notation to represent those. The periodic system is a development of notation for the clear ontology of chemistry. Various different notation were developed in chemistry to be able to represent the molecules. For that you need a clear ontology of the molecules.
Musical notation rests on the concepts like notes being ontologically very clearly defined.
If you have the international phonetic alphabet (IPA), it’s notation rests on an ontology of consonants having a place of articulation (where in the vocal tract the consonant is made Examples: bilabial, dental, alveolar, palatal, velar, glottal) and a manner of articulation (how the airflow is shaped or obstructed Examples: plosive, nasal, trill, fricative, approximant, lateral approximant).
Interestingly, modern text-to-speech systems often internally derivate from the international phonetic alphabet, so that ontology is a bit more arbitrary than the ontology for different kinds of atoms. Different languages also express the same IPA sound slightly differently. Yet, if you for example look at the conlanging community they do use IPA and the ontology on which it is build.
If you take a post-1960 new notation like the notation for mental processes laid out in The Emprint Method by Leslie Cameron-Bandler, Michael Lebeau and David Gordon in 1985, that does come with a ontology backing it.
Leverage Research charting could be seen as another post-1960 notation that comes out of the ontology of Leverage Research for beliefs. I haven’t interacted directly with Leverage around charting, but I would expect that Geoff, would agree with that description.
Even when you could have a scientific discourse build around both notations, both of those notations didn’t really find adoption. As far as I’m aware post-1960 academic psychologists did not come up with something similar as either of those two projects and I do think that their relationship to ontology is a cause of that. Physicalism does seem to me like a good culprit to blame for it. Geoff and Cameron-Bandler aren’t physicalist.