It’s a battle between “classification vs type theory”

Ok! Class: classification!

It’s a battle between “classification vs type theory”

So they have CONCEPTS as the basis of CLASSIFICATION. In first quote below: 1) Concepts are subject to change (yes!) 2) what I am calling TYPE they are calling “General Concept (vs Individual Concept).

3) in linked page: I notice they also use the term “Top category”

4) second quote! I could construe TYPE as “Pragmatic classification (and functional and teleological classification)”. Possibly. It can be easily abused in a utilitarian context, Ok. I need to line these up and make check that each matches properly.

“An important argument for considering concepts the basis of classification is that concepts are subject to change and that they changes when scientific revolutions occur.

Our concepts of many birds, for example, have changed with recent development in DNA analysis and the influence of the cladistic paradigm – and have demanded new classifications.

1st quote:
“Smith’s example of France demands an explanation. First, France is not a general concept, but an individual concept. Next, the legal definition of France is determined by the conventions that France has made with other countries. It is still a concept, however, as Leclercq (1978) demonstrates with the corresponding concept Europe.”

2nd quote:
“Pragmatic classification (and functional and teleological classification) is the classification of items which emphasis the goals, purposes, consequences,[20] interests, values and politics of classification. It is, for example, classifying animals into wild animals, pests, domesticated animals and pets. Also kitchenware (tools, utensils, appliances, dishes, and cookware used in food preparation, or the serving of food) is an example of a classification which is not based on any of the above-mentioned three methods, but clearly on pragmatic or functional criteria. Bonaccorsi et al. (2019) is about the general theory of functional classification and applications of this approach for patent classification. Although the examples may suggest that pragmatic classifications are primitive compared to established scientific classifications, it must be considered in relation to the pragmatic and critical theory of knowledge, which consider all knowledge as influences by interests (cf., Barnes 1977).”


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_(general_theory)\

no! pragmatic is not type. Types are what I have outlined – the thing I call “thinging”. I’m ok with those as it’s more fundamental than classes…

-thingingz

 SUPERORDINATES or hypernyms!

SuperordinatesSuperordinate terms (often also called ‘hypernyms,’ ‘anaphoric nouns,’ or ‘discourse-organizing words’) are nouns that can be used to stand for an entire ‘class’ or ‘category’ of things. Thus, a superordinate term acts as an ‘umbrella’ term that includes within it the meaning of other words. For example, ‘vehicle’ is the superordinate concept for ‘lorry’, ‘automobile’, ‘bicycle’, and ‘tram’.

http://sana.aalto.fi/awe/grammar/superordinate.htm
 polysemy

Digging deeper:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00192/full
ok. I like “polysemy” and “homonymy” – it’s the source of many puns and poetry and creative writing.
 —-
NO! no no no, I’ve had it all opposite.
I love polysemy, metonyms, and metaphors.
I love the vagueness and flexibility, ambiguity and ranges.
Superordinate classes are fantastic as they can cover a lot of territory and be analogized easily.

So..
…where do i disconnect?
—-
its when i don’t see the conversant’s background
But that wouldn’t relate to musical notes .. or
constraints…
 commands! motor commands.musical notes are specific motor commands.
 attitude
attitude
it is the attitude of the giver of the motor commands.but of what?

specificity?
performance?
judgement?

ok whose interests do they have in mind?

When i work with someone on their self development, i focus on what their needs are from their stated perspective. From that i customize what i think will function for that purpose.

i focus on gists. general directions. ranges. vagueness and ambiguity are ok if it’s in the right general area and we are in agreement about being ok with that.

precision only matters when there is confusion and then only add just enough precision to resolve confusion.

the end goal is an amicable process by default. it can be contentious if more specific goals are put into place but only if they are understood and reiterated throughout.

 ah ha!!

my problem is generalizing with precision that if i fail, i am punished.

by whom?

Attachments

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


five + 8 =

Leave a Reply