An Ontology Ontology

I'm thinking about designing a constructed language for this ontology. This can get complicated very quickly. I would want to have "tenses" for words based on each modality. There would also be "bridge" tenses, for vocabulary that explicitly bridges modalities.

I would also like to include the possibility of certain words with absolute semantic value, that would hold the same meaning in each modality. Conversely, I would also like to include words with relative semantic value that change in meaning when they are translated from one modality to another.

Interesting, like an Omnitology...

can you expound more?

I'm going through a video lecture series related to Ontology (and making ontologies) while also seeking to draw inspiration from Kant.

Are you willing to wait? It could take years.

One thing that would make this very simple is if I use 1-word concepts to represent the various angle of the ontology.

Some examples are:

-Absolute
-Relative
-Fact
-Counterfact
-Translation
-Bridge
-Modality

And so on. However, I don't necessarily want to derive the logic from English. The concept being represented by the word is the more important aspect of what I am trying to include in the ontology. This is why I think a conlang will be necessary.

I think a simple reference model would be something like an Orange. Let's say we slice it in half and inside the pulp is divided into 4 sections. That's how you get the skin as one thing and the pulp as another, with the pulp dividing into 4 parts, yet they are counterfactual.

But this is just to get the geometric picture. It's not about the orange and it's not about what happens to the other half of the slice. The idea is a "half-sphere" with 4 bounded areas on the "inside" to represent the counterfactual modalities.

I think following this model would allow a construction of a kind of "toy" for conceptualizing this ontology in 3 dimensions. You could "spin the dial" on the outer spherical area to shift the arrangement of how the 4 counterfactual modalities relate to each other "within" statically, which would change how they express themselves dynamically.

Right, so I've uncovered that each of the 4 counterfactual modalities (inner regions) have a relationship to the Factual (outer sphere) individually, which would be the Absolute. In this context, the outer sphere signifies Reality and the individual inner region signifies a Fact.

They also have relation to each other. These would be Relative. These are the ones where translations change in meaning. When the Relative and Absolute are included in the expression, that is Universal. However this is still a signifier of the relationships, Absolute and Relative.

There is a different term for the expression of Fact which is not simply Factuality, communicated in the Factual modality and also not merely Absolute Fact or Relative Fact. Neither is it only a Universal Fact. It is a Total Fact.

These "types of Fact" can sustain a taxonomy referenced by the structure of this ontology. These are the 4 "Counterfactual modalities". The Factual modality doesn't get special terminology because it doesn't need this kind of distinguishing, being One. It is simply Fact or Factuality, depending on whether the focus is upon the context or the content.

I Kant wait.

Hilarious

english language has generally followed this from the sumer root.
like a chrystal growing eventually dies out from imperfections in the base material composition,deriving perfection in the language would require a supercomputer of logic to run this out beyond mans mind.its just too overwhelming even though the concept is beautiful.

a perfect language,what a wonderous thing to hear.
i hope im actually understanding your theory above and havent gone off on a tangent.

Sorry to sound like a dick but imo these kinds of models died out at the end of the 20th century and have no relevance in today's world.

We live in an era where everything is instantaneous, and acts have eclipsed ideas.

I think you're following along well! Lucky for me I speak a few other kinds of languages that have different roots from English. This is why I place emphasis on the concepts themselves, rather than the words. You make a very good point about the quality of the base material influencing the quality of the crystal output. I'm going to be thinking about that. Maybe i've been confining myself too much to English with these thoughts.

Thanks for reading and offering feedback. I'm grateful for the inspiration your energy brings to my work

No it's cool. I agree with you that hardly anyone cares about ideas these days.

But think about this. If you had a reliable model of existence you could act on existence itself and affect everything in existence. I think it doesn't get more instantaneous than that.

Good luck and let us know if it works. Plenty have tried. I like Mark Passio's 'aggregate consciousness' idea, whereby the actions of the collective majority determine reality according to an existing 'natural law'. Kind of makes sense why so much effort is put into shaping the mass consciousness through propaganda etc.

Ah....that's a great idea, consensus is key of course. However as you mention all the shaping of mass consciousness. That's actually one of my motivations for working on this. I would like the model to be effective at the individual level, to increase freedom at the individual level.

The ontology, ideally, includes the individual's actions and the collective's actions, harmoniously and in a noncontradictory way. It's definitely heavy with idealism, this idea. I'll be glad to share the results of the experiment. Though if it succeeds, I think I would just "export" it as a gift to everything in existence. Like a test run, to see if it works :)

I think it would be interesting if the 4 CF modalities would form a "rock-paper-scissors" relationship in how their translations work. The idea is like this. Each of the 4 "rules" one of the others and "is ruled" by a different one, with a neutral stance in relation to the last one.

This way, depending on which modality is being used, the meaning of it can be readily deduced by this "rock-paper-scissors" relationship, where the "higher context" determines the "lower context" in the semantic.

So that sounds kinda theoretical and complicated but that's cause I'm trying to put it into English terms.

It would be like Rock Paper Scissors and Fire.

Fire compresses rock into Metal, for the scissors.
Paper fuels Fire.
Scissors cut paper and divide its potential (fuel efficiency goes down)
Rock shapes scissors.

Alright, so I'm not sure if that really clarifies it much but I'm trying to make it concrete.

The point is that each of the modalities will have one modality for which it serves as static meaning and another for which it is a dynamic meaning. The static meaning "anchors" the dynamic meaning.

The other relationship among the 4 is "neutral meaning".

So what would determine the positions of each modality in their relationship to each other? I think it would depend on how the statement begins, which modalities it traverses, and where it ends. This seems pretty straightforward to me, I'm going to need a punctuation system then.

With this RPSF concept, it would be possible to create "infinite loop" statements. The way to close out of the infinite loop would be to use the neutral translation.

So if there's an infinite loop where paper fuels fire, which heat is absorbed into rock, whose shape becomes that of scissor, which cuts paper, then there is an impending "collapse" in what's possible, because fueling the fire ultimately contradicts the fueling of the fire.

But if you want to keep the fire steady, you don't want to get to the point where scissors cuts paper. So, from the scissor modality you would translate to fire directly and that would create a stable loop.

I was talking with a friend about this and explained it differently to him. I said the 4 counterfactual modalities are

* What could have been
* What could be soon
* What could be elsewise now
* What isn't

And obviously the factual modality would be

* What is


I like this much better than the rock paper scissors baloney I was working with earlier.

Picking up where I left off. I've had some time to think about this some more.

Intelligence is measured by level of skill in practical application or by clarity of communication.

I will focus these two variations as "types of intelligence". Skill and Clarity. Keeping it simple.

Borrowing from Gary Chapman's "5 Love Languages" as a template for 5 ways to communicate.

He says the 5 Love Languages are:

* Acts of Service
* Gifts
* Quality Time
* Words of Affirmation
* Physical Touch

There is a nuance to this system that I will highlight. This is that the Love Language is separated into Transmission and Reception.

In more practical terms, an individual may be more transmissive with one LL, such as Words of Affirmation but more receptive to another LL, such as Acts of Service.

So it isn't so flat as splitting into 5. There are more possible variations where the individual can be rated on each differently. I think it isn't arbitrary. More on this later.

For now, I'd like to highlight that there are a few different ways to transmit a message and receive it.

I will lay out a short breakdown of what factors might influence the individual preference for reception in any of these LLs.

Acts of Service

Increasing preference: Orientation towards the concrete and the practical.

Decreasing preference: Strong sense of independence or desire to control more variables in the process of getting things done

Gifts

Increasing preference: Materialistic values. Token sentimentality. Storing memories in external objectss.

Decreasing preference: Nonmaterialistic values. Feeling pressure to reciprocate.

Quality Time

Increasing preference: Oriented towards relationship with the individual. Activity oriented. Adapting to others.

Decreasing preference: High gregariousness. Stable rapport or deep understanding of one another.

Words of Affirmation

Increasing Preference: Verbal or auditory learner. Literal or more abstractly oriented.

Decreasing Preference: Mistrust towards flattery. Oriented more towards talking more rather than listening.

Physical Touch

Increasing preference: Strong desire for grounding and tangible inputs. Oriented towards sensory experiences.

Decreasing preference: Strong need for personal space. Body centric identity-sense.

--

There's more to each of these but I don't want to focus too much on the details of Chapman's system. This layout is for the purpose of extracting the template.

Shoo.

I will assign key symbols during construction.

“+” signifies transmission.
“-“ signifies reception.

Next, the 5 senses (mediums)

* Visual
* Auditory
* Olfactory
* Haptic
* Gustatory

—

+V: a transmission through the visual medium
-V: a reception through the visual medium

+A: a transmission through the auditory medium
-A: a reception through the auditory medium

+O: a transmission through the olfactory medium
-O: a reception through the olfactory medium

+H: a transmission through the haptic medium
-H: a reception through the haptic medium

+G: a transmission through the gustatory medium
-G: a reception through the gustatory medium

—

This is what each symbol will signify for future reference.

For the conlang I am considering how to set up the sound tables. I separate a sound intended for the purpose of speech into the following components:

* Particle (such as "K")
* The application of Flow to a particle (where the particle "K" becomes "H" with the application of flow)
* The application of Vibration (so "K" becomes "G")

The Particle is a simplex, and Flow/Vibration can be considered composite.

There is another form, which is Flow AND Vibration applied to the same Particle, which I am calling a "synthetic composite".

I will provide some examples in a reply.

Taking the first example first:

Particle: K
Flow: H
Vibration: G
synthetic composite: "GH" (pronounces ggghhh) (this sound is not used in English, but can be found in the Ukranian pronunciation of "G")

Another example:

Particle: T
Flow: S
Vibration: D
synthetic composite: "ZH" (another sound not used in English, but can be found in Russian according to the character that looks like the shape of an asterisk "*")

Alternate version of the Particle "T"

Particle: T
Flow: TH (in english, like "TH" in the word THOUGHT)
Vibration: hard-T (again, referencing in russian, a distinction between soft-T and hard-T sound which is not distinguished in English)
synthetic composite: "TH" (in english, like "TH" in the word "THE")

Another example:

Particle: P
Flow: F
Vibration: B
synthetic composite: V
(all of these are available in English, pretty straightforward)

--

I am also working on a theory that all vowels are synthetic composites of the sound "H" and are "non-particles".

I will quickly add that these are experimental examples and NOT intended as the final array.

There is more to the T particle where it can be transformed into SH and J sounds as well. What this means is that further analysis is necesssary.