I had a hard time following the article. It points to a variety of ideas, but I feel it’s not really clear.
In the start you speak about truth. Then you say:
An understanding of truth as insight into the essence of something, as seeing essence unhidden [3], in much the same way how you see how a friend really is after getting to know him, does not have that pathology.
This means that the tree that falls in the forest doesn’t truly make a sound because there’s nobody around to have the insight that it makes a sound.
For a variety of reasons that’s not satisfying. As a result in Western thought we have the concept of truth and the concept of knowledge as distinct concepts.
Next you get to “the map is not the territory”. It’s the catchphrase of Korzybsky’s Science and Sanity (and therefore general semantics) which lays out a complex way of thinking about the world. You dismiss it by saying: “How can I find a way to rethink the following insight in terms of maps and territories?”
General semantics is not about thinking about whether something is a map or the territory. It’s not about dualism and how things are either the map or the territory. General semantics rather rejects dualism and the is of identity.
Next you speak about whether an idea like shit exists. For purposes of applied ontology it’s useful to say that an idea like that can truly exist. The ability to reason about abstract concepts is very useful to deal with them effectively. If you keep all knowledge implicit you are going to run into problems when things get complex. Keeping concepts implicit leads to moat-and-bailey problems.
When you move past the idea that abstract concepts can be true you get people who say that for example a Wikipedia article is fine when it accurately represents the view of authoritative sources about the topic because any idea of it being true in a more absolute sense doesn’t exist.
Denail of abstract concepts having the ability to be true caused a lot of mess. I like Barry Smith’s Introduction into Applied Ontology where he makes a deeper case for why it’s very useful to be able to think of abstract concepts as true.
You speak about “Joint-Carvey ontologies”. A quick Google search suggests that you are the first person who uses this phrase online. I can guess what you mean by thinking about the phrase and having cultural LW background but it’s hard to follow along. Without Googling I don’t know whether you actually refer to something that has a more formal definition.
I had a hard time following the article. It points to a variety of ideas, but I feel it’s not really clear.
In the start you speak about truth. Then you say:
This means that the tree that falls in the forest doesn’t truly make a sound because there’s nobody around to have the insight that it makes a sound.
For a variety of reasons that’s not satisfying. As a result in Western thought we have the concept of truth and the concept of knowledge as distinct concepts.
Next you get to “the map is not the territory”. It’s the catchphrase of Korzybsky’s Science and Sanity (and therefore general semantics) which lays out a complex way of thinking about the world. You dismiss it by saying: “How can I find a way to rethink the following insight in terms of maps and territories?”
General semantics is not about thinking about whether something is a map or the territory. It’s not about dualism and how things are either the map or the territory. General semantics rather rejects dualism and the is of identity.
Next you speak about whether an idea like shit exists. For purposes of applied ontology it’s useful to say that an idea like that can truly exist. The ability to reason about abstract concepts is very useful to deal with them effectively. If you keep all knowledge implicit you are going to run into problems when things get complex. Keeping concepts implicit leads to moat-and-bailey problems.
When you move past the idea that abstract concepts can be true you get people who say that for example a Wikipedia article is fine when it accurately represents the view of authoritative sources about the topic because any idea of it being true in a more absolute sense doesn’t exist.
Denail of abstract concepts having the ability to be true caused a lot of mess. I like Barry Smith’s Introduction into Applied Ontology where he makes a deeper case for why it’s very useful to be able to think of abstract concepts as true.
You speak about “Joint-Carvey ontologies”. A quick Google search suggests that you are the first person who uses this phrase online. I can guess what you mean by thinking about the phrase and having cultural LW background but it’s hard to follow along. Without Googling I don’t know whether you actually refer to something that has a more formal definition.