Ontology Puns

So last semester I did an independent study on Nietzsche, I focused mostly on trying to read through all of his works (which I mostly accomplished) but I also read some essays from Deleuze, Michel Haar, and Pierre Klossowski. One of the things I took issue with in these thinker's interpretation of Nietzsche (which I brought up to my professor) is that they seem to have very explicitly metaphysical readings of things like the will to power and the eternal return, and Nietzsche criticizes metaphysics a lot (especially in his early work). But over december I read Todd May's book on Deleuze and he describes Deleuze's project as ontological, not metaphysical(he doesn't say it isn't metaphysical, he just only says ontological and never uses the word metaphysical to describe Deleuze). Now I'm left wondering if these thinkers get around Nietzsche's critiques of metaphysics by saying it's ontological instead. But that made me realize that I don't really understand the core difference between the two. I've tried searching online and I can't find any helpful definitions of the two. It's also problematic because I have seen people describe Deleuze's project in Difference and Repetition as a metaphysical project. So I'm just kinda left confused on these terms. Could anyone help clarify the distinction and how it applies to Nietzsche and these later French Nietzscheans? Thanks

I have looked these words up at least twenty times and it just doesn’t stick. Definitions like the study of being don’t initially mean anything to me but worse, don’t match their usage, and then, the words aren’t used in a discernibly consistent way. Is there a simple way to understand what exactly these terms are referring to? Does everyone use them in the same way or are they terms that are a little slippery and everyone has their own idea, even though they have a definite definition?

So the idea of treating or interpreting Information as a fundamental ontology.

Where it maybe treated as separate from Matter or Energy.

I've been interested in Ontology for some years now, but I never quite found a satisfying definition of what it really is. Obviously we can trace Ontology to it's greek origins and talk about the definition of τò óν, but from what I've been studying, the discourse about Ontology begins in a context in which conventional western metaphysics is obsolete, due to Kant's works. Ontology, I believe, is a post-critical reconstruction of the discourse about Being. However, how could we differentiate it better from metaphysics?

I’m struggling to get my head around the ontology/epistemology and ethos of CBT. On one hand, the theory may be objective and positivist as researchers are wanted to move away from subject Freudian theory of an unobservable unmeasurable “conscious” to a more quantitative research experiments in which focused on faults models of thinking- this is all very objective and positivist.

On the other hand, it may be based on the constructivist belief similar to stoic beliefs that reality is what we make of it and we can change our thought patterns to give us a more pleasant experience, therefore reality is not based on external discoverable truth, but due to how we perceive it- constructivism. The Epistemology may be interpretivism as a persons thinking patterns are subjective, personal and can be impacted by the social world.

I’m really at a loss here, anybody any thoughts? EDIT my research question is to compare and contrast two therapies- I am using CBT vs Psychoanalysis- including discussing differences and similarities on their ontology, epistemology and their ethos- therefore ideally each therapy needs to be assigned a label that I can compare each on (ontology- constructivism vs objectivism, epistemology- positive vs interpretivism vs realism)***

lamppost light

from across

rippled pond

offers only

a broken

sliver

of midnight

silver

to my two

mortal eyes -

keeping

only for

the moon

the secrets

of the

full extent

of what shines

link

link

I am working on a product around data sources and ontologies, for which I require ontology files which have description of the entities/attributes present.

I know of protege library where you can download ontologies.

Are there any more sources from where I can get downloadable ontology files?

🎙 Polaris & Atherton

👉 t.me/OntologyNetwork

https://preview.redd.it/w9hyveudch581.jpg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f00e2b63702a0bff9e5104cebc2852188d612dfa

Is there any work for a philosophy of science or Philosophy of physics on the type of ontologies that analytic metaphysicians, like Alan Sidelle, have endorsed that say the only things that actually exist is “unidividuated stuff”?

"Gender changes" are things like HRT, which cause you to be perceived by others as a different gender and change the gender-based dis/privileges to which you are subject, such as gendered discrimination.

"Sex changes" are things like surgical sterilization and FTM chest surgery, which change the sex-based dis/privileges to which you are subject, such as having to wake up four times a night to nurse the baby.

/hj sex is real but only for breeders

I'm looking for a good (preferably free or cheap) tool to take a corpus of documents and match them to an ontology automatically. For example, match a collection of journal articles to an ontology that describes various scientific domains, scientists, theories, etc. If you are familiar with the vendor Pool Party they have an excellent tool that does this but it's expensive and I've already used up my evaluation license. I use Protege and AllegroGraph quite a bit so any tool that is well integrated with one of those would be great but not a requirement.

This post would seem far removed from the topics which I usually post. I am not sure if everyone on this sub can appreciate these incoherent ramblings of mine, nevertheless I consider it is of importance that my thoughts need to be communicated to a wider audience to invoke critique to rectify any wrong conclusions or ideas that I may have imbibed.

Disclaimer: I am not a perennialist or universalist.

Lately I have been reading a lot of Islamic metaphysics, especially the schools of Avicenna, Ibn Arabi and Mulla Sadra and I am particularly intrigued by their ontology and it’s implications in the Hindu mode of thought . For those who are unaware, ontology is a branch of metaphysics which concerns itself with the nature of being.

The whole enterprise of Islamic metaphysics, or the main question that Islamic metaphysicians seek to answer is the relationship between being (Wujud) and essence (mahiyya) .

This distinction follows from Aristotle’s conception of the dual inquiry which arises naturally out of the cognition of an external object. We can ask two fundamental questions regarding its nature:-

1. Does it exist?

2. What is it?

The second question is an inquiry into the object’s essence (which in the Islamic context refers to everything from an object’s composition to it’s teleology, and should not be confused with the vernacular usage of the term suggesting a conflation with substance ), while the first question is an inquiry into its existence.

Before we get into the juicy stuff it is important to understand the difference between necessary and contingent beings.

A contingent being refers to an existence which exists in a state of possibility that is between existence and non-existence. Human beings and all entities which compose the material cosmos are contingent for they arise out of mere chance and could have been otherwise nonexistent .The consensus among most Islamic philosophers (with the exception of Al Suhrawardi) are that the essences or quiddities that constitute the variety of the cosmos are contingent.

A related term in Indian philosophy would be mithya or false perception of the world arising out of Maya—in which the world is considered to be in a state which is between Sat (Existence) and Asat (Non Existence).

Note very carefully that we must not confuse contingency with impossibility (to suggest that something simultaneously exists and does not exist) and with the exaltation of God to be beyond Being and Non existence (Gita 9.19

❗Alert❗bad node behaviour detected, this node previously cut rewards to 0, then he renamed node 3 times while he offered 90/90 ratio to attract stakers, now he again cut rewards to 0! I strongly advice to unstake before round ends, or you will not get any rewards for staking to this node. Stake to trusted nodes, ones with stable ratio checkmark at node.ont.io

Node name change history - "UK VC ONT" -> "ONT Stake" -> "Stakers" -> "Ontology Stake" (current name)

I think it can be looked at as either. At this stage in my investigation, I see support for both points of view.

Within advaita itself, it sees its thesis (brahma satyam jagat mithya, jivo brahiva naparah) as a statement on the actual nature of reality. I.e., it is actually the case that brahman alone is real, the jagat is unreal, and jiva and brahman are actually the same. However, in doing so, I think it steps on the territory of science. Some scientists have actually been enthusiastic about this idea. E.g., JC Bose invested a great deal of time in trying to prove a monistic view of reality; Schrodinger and Bohm were to some degree enthusiastic about vedanta. I think the recent developments in the philosophy of consciousness (panpsychism, literature on the hard problem of consciousness) might also hint that nondualistic idealism as in advaita is a correct view of the nature of reality as it actually is. So it might well be the case that advaita is a correct ontology, it's just that science hasn't caught up yet.

But advaita vedanta can also be seen as only a description of a particular state of consciousness arrived through contemplative practices - basically, as a phenomenology of experience. I have heard this said by Sthaneshwar Timalsina. This will explain why different vedantic acharyas arrived at different seemingly contradictory phenomenologies based on the prasthana trayi - there just are many different ways of describing your experience, or perhaps even different kinds of experiences. It will also explain the seeming difficulties that lie in deriving any empirically demonstrable theory or claim from the advaitic thesis (i.e., how can something "mental" like consciousness give rise to something "physical", for instance). But it would still satisfy the requirement that the practice of advaita vedanta leads to atyantika duhkha nivrrtti - maybe the description that atman = brahman is indeed a very blissful and satisfactory state of the mind, irrespective of whether it is true or not.

What do you think of this issue, and why? Do you know of any literature that deals with this specific issue?

• DOI/PMID/ISBN: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3945-6_74

• URL

Join https://t.me/OntologyNetwork NOW!

Details👇

https://medium.com/ontologynetwork/ontology-loyal-member-nft-c4578fc111bd

https://preview.redd.it/jag3eelhdh581.jpg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8c7c96518c17159960bc1cedd503209eaf47c8c0

Can someone send me ontology gas, and I can transfer back some ontology? I need it to stake the 100ont I have

This clown 🤡 invading my level 80 in 1-4, has a Blueblood sword but didn’t swing just pushed and one shot me, has this happened to anyone here on ps5?

I'm a graduate student working at the intersection of art and technology, examining how various ontologies can inform our relationship with artificial intelligence. I'm not native american (latinx), yet want to incorporate various first nations and indigenous ontologies into my research. I'm unsure of how to best approach doing so with sensitivity, respect, and care. The last thing I want to do is appropriate cultural beliefs or misrepresent them. Has anyone experience this in their research or otherwise have advice? I thought about broadening the themes at play to be fairly non-specific and more universal (i.e. reciprocity with nature, the notion that the sacred, spirit, power, or something akin moves in all things ( though not equally), animism, et cetera.)

🎙 Polaris & Atherton

👉 t.me/OntologyNetwork

https://preview.redd.it/w9hyveudch581.jpg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f00e2b63702a0bff9e5104cebc2852188d612dfa

🎙 Polaris & Atherton

👉 t.me/OntologyNetwork

https://preview.redd.it/w9hyveudch581.jpg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f00e2b63702a0bff9e5104cebc2852188d612dfa

🎙 Polaris & Atherton

👉 t.me/OntologyNetwork

https://preview.redd.it/w9hyveudch581.jpg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f00e2b63702a0bff9e5104cebc2852188d612dfa

Is there any work for a philosophy of science or Philosophy of physics on the type of ontologies that analytic metaphysicians, like Alan Sidelle, have endorsed that say the only things that actually exist is “unidividuated stuff”?

Join https://t.me/OntologyNetwork NOW!

Details👇

https://medium.com/ontologynetwork/ontology-loyal-member-nft-c4578fc111bd

https://preview.redd.it/jag3eelhdh581.jpg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8c7c96518c17159960bc1cedd503209eaf47c8c0