does age matter?

[Anoush]

Re: does age matter?

I totally agree. I would simply add that
1. A man who loses control of his sanity to the point of beating his wife or loved one(s) has serious mental issues
2. I hope that you will agree with me, I think that children and seniors are often as abused as women and for similar reasons

Of course I agree with you that anyone who beats up his wife or children has very serious mental problems. Though it's very unfortunate and inhumanly; but children being abused is terrible as they would get totally screwed before they lived their life. When children are beaten up then either biologically speaking their structure or their vital organs would be affected or both. Psychologically they would grow up to be warped and have a defermation of character. I hate to hear or see a child being abused.

With seniors; usually when they are confined to institutions then they get abused by the workers who supposedly are there to help them.

My model also assumes that we are born with a "soul," as suggested in:
"Briefly said, I think that children have no "spirit" and their "soul" animates their playful being"
However, we disagree on whether we're born with a spirit or not. The disagreement may be a matter of semantics as suggested below

Personally, I think that we can think and communicate about what exists only using models - that philosophers have called ontologies and IT specialists call Data Models - where basic concepts - and their relationships - are defined and all "facts" and recorded and communicated using those basic concepts or others derived from the basic ones.
Similar concepts may be defined in a completely or slightly different manner in different models. Some models can more accurately describe/represent certain facts than others and models change, evolve and replaced when, eventually, they become obsolete; in other words, semantics are relative and there are no "Universal or Absolute Models."

Coming back to our subject, what I understand by "spirit" and "soul" may be different from yours - that's why I put them in quotes - and it is unusual to oppose the "soul" and the "spirit" as I do it. Also, please keep in mind that fundamental concepts can be accurately defined only to a certain degree and definitions can be refined in an iterative and interactive manner.

I understand as "soul" what is closer to the animal and emotional in us, the temperament and what we call pnavoroutioun; I understand as "spirit" what is rational, cerebral, formal and technical. Of course, that remains relatively vague and incomplete.

Our understanding of the human body is still relatively limited; but, if I had to associate the above concepts with biological systems/processes, I would say that the "soul" is rather supported by - not reduced to - the Endocrine System while the "spirit" by the Nervous System. That is a relatively complex and controversial subject and, again, I will not go into details. Maybe at another time.

In any case, my concepts of "soul" and "spirit" have no religious connotations and should be considered in view of the many century long discussion about Nature vs. Culture that goes as far as at least Rousseau - the philosopher, if not further.

I hope that the above clarified - at least, a bit - what I mean by "soul" and "spirit?" Please don't hesitate to force me for more elucidation.

To my knowledge and understanding of both the words spirit and the soul; they are the same and they both mean what we call it in Armenian "hoki". You cannot differentiate both words as they mean the same.

What I would like to know is this; are you differentiating from both words and making an assumption of the biological connotations to them? Meaning one means the Endocrine gland and the other the nervous system of the human body. Both having biological meaning and entity to them.

Scientifically speaking the human body when is deceased, the spirit doesn't die with it; but goes and joins into another entity within the planet earth or the universe.

I don't know her work; but, based on the above, I would consider what Zabel Yessyan describes as the imprisonment, confinement or suffocation of the "soul" by the "spirit."
What would you recommend to read? Thanks.

The only one that comes to mind now is the Bible (the new testament).

It seems that the choice of the word "modulator" was unfortunate because it has created more confusion than elucidate; however, if it helps, I'll explain the reason behind my choice - LOL what I should have done in my original post. It's a terminology inspired by signal transmission - i.e. the 'M' in AM/FM - where a modulator is used in the transmission of a "carrier wave." The modulator does not add or subtract information that is contained in the carrier wave. So it was supposed to mean to say that it's only a "support," a "container" and does not participate to the "substance" - that is represented/carried by "child."

In any case, I don't like the metaphor anymore, so let me try it differently. I will first give a simple - probably incomplete - definition, then illustrate the idea with a metaphor.
1- Definition: The "eternal" in Eternal Child means that, at any point in time and under any circumstance, the child is "identical" to itself i.e. can be described by similar well known and identified characteristics - for instance, the list that I have suggested

2- Metaphor: If you consider each frame of a movie as a snapshot of the child at different times and circumstances then the content of the frame - i.e. the picture - is the child's characteristics and the fact the roll is infinite does not add anything to the content of a frame. Eternal Child means something like "the snapshots describe a 'similar' picture."

LOL I hope that the above elucidated instead of creating more confusion???

(Are you familiar with the concept of Eternal Return in Nietzsche? It may help???)

No; but about four semesters ago when I attended a philosophy class, I bought the book, but I read another one instead. I still have the book and I should be reading it. I know of another person who raved about it.

Yes, as I said earlier, I can easily relate to what she describes.

[Siamanto]

Re: does age matter?

Siamanto, I am quite disappointed that you haven't mentioned Eliade yet at this point in the thread...

http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Eternal-Return-Princeton-Editions/dp/0691123500

axel, I knew that you would mention it and I was not wrong. You're still so predictable!

and what about Cioran?

Amot kez! Do you expect me to spread the Muslim faith on an Armenian forum?

So you like Cioran better than "Derrida, Althusser, Bourdieu and Sartre" now? What happened?

Similar concepts may be defined in a completely or slightly different manner in different models. Some models can more accurately describe/represent certain facts than others and models change, evolve and replaced when, eventually, they become obsolete; in other words, semantics are relative and there are no "Universal or Absolute Models."

Just out of curiosity: are you using OMG's MOF as your meta-metamodel?

It is about M1-models or M0-models.
Just curious, what do you exactly mean? If you mean whether they are semantically compatible with MOF's meta-metamodel - i.e. can be described using an M2-model based on MOF - then what is the point or merit of the question?

In any case, for the record, the closest to what I have called "Universals Models" would be standards recommended by Oasis, standards such as JusticeXML or what L. Silverstone "pretends" to be Universal Data Models.
(I used the word "pretend" because they are not industry standards and there exists no consensus about them; it was not about the quality of his Data Models.)

[axel]

Re: does age matter?

axel, I knew that you would mention it and I was not wrong. You're still so predictable!

I see. You purposedly left this allusion so as to drag me into the "Love and Romance" forum. How wicked of you.

Amot kez! Do you expect me to spread the Muslim faith on an Armenian forum?

???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Cioran

So you like Cioran better

Definitely yes but I am not a huge fan. Too cynical. Still powerful insights and elegant style. Got a few writings of his on my bookshelf.
How could you possibly relate this post-fascist to "the gang of four" (I am not talking design patterns here)?




OK, getting back to the thread's original topic...

I was wondering whether we could use XMI to exchange SCML (Siamanto Conceptual Modeling Language) models and use existing MOF-based tools to compare/merge/consolidate and possibly navigate through the latter. (To your credit) reverse-engineering your posts appears to be a real challenge though.

Another reason for mentioning MOF is that the more you go up the meta hierarchy the less the (m*-)model changes so I was hoping to find some stability by going all the way up to M3. (I for one, do not like MOF and its subsets or pseudo-subsets (EMF) very much. Way too limited. Way too static)

As to universal modeling, could we say it is a myth, a mere illusion, a mirage (speaking of oasis...)? Take the example of UML for instance. A complete failure. Even the complexity of software systems cannot be captured by "universal" metamodels. We are confronted with the eternal return of domain-specific stuff.

PS: To all participants in this thread, please stick to the topic. Thanks.

[Siamanto]

Re: does age matter?

Of course I agree with you that anyone who beats up his wife or children has very serious mental problems. Though it's very unfortunate and inhumanly; but children being abused is terrible as they would get totally screwed before they lived their life. When children are beaten up then either biologically speaking their structure or their vital organs would be affected or both. Psychologically they would grow up to be warped and have a defermation of character. I hate to hear or see a child being abused.

With seniors; usually when they are confined to institutions then they get abused by the workers who supposedly are there to help them.

Yes!

To my knowledge and understanding of both the words spirit and the soul; they are the same and they both mean what we call it in Armenian "hoki". You cannot differentiate both words as they mean the same.

1. Yes there is some overlap and ambiguity between "soul' and "spirit" but should they be considered as synonyms? In fact, neither the definitions nor the usage of "soul" and "spirit" completely collide - please compare subsets of their definition below.
2. Both are polysemic and their usage can be ambiguous; so it is conceivable, for more clarity and rigor, to limit their usage to a subset of their "common" usage
3. In many disciplines, it is not an unusual practice to redefine and reconsider common concepts regardless of the "common" usage of the corresponding words. In different disciplines and at different times or thinkers the "same" concepts or words may have different meanings.

In fact, all I did is limit each of the two words to a subset of their "common" usage and emphasize on their dichotomy instead of overlap. The following are subsets of the "common" definition of "soul" and "spirit" that I have limited to the usage I suggested in my previous post. Of course, my previous post, went a step further in clarifying the nature and accentuating the differences or "dichotomy."


Soul
1. the principle of life, feeling...and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body
2. the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments
3. the animating principle


Spirit
1. the principle of conscious life....mediating between body and soul
2. the incorporeal part of humans: present in spirit though absent in body
3. conscious, incorporeal being, as opposed to matter: the world of spirit

The "soul/spirit" dichotomy is essential to how I view the human behavior, adulthood, childhood etc.


As for the Armenian "hoki" and "voki" - two words, not one - unfortunately, my poor knowledge of the Armenian Literature and Philosophy would not allow to make any comments about their respective usage. I don't even have access to an etymological dictionary.

Our understanding of the human body is still relatively limited; but, if I had to associate the above concepts with biological systems/processes, I would say that the "soul" is rather supported by - not reduced to - the Endocrine System while the "spirit" by the Nervous System. That is a relatively complex and controversial subject and, again, I will not go into details. Maybe at another time.

What I would like to know is this; are you differentiating from both words and making an assumption of the biological connotations to them? Meaning one means the Endocrine gland and the other the nervous system of the human body. Both having biological meaning and entity to them.

I did not want to get into details, but LOL you asked for it!
First of all, I apologize for the confusion, but no "assumption of biological connotations" were made. At the contrary,
1. It explicitly says "supported by - not reduced to"
2. There's an explicit word of caution i.e. " Our understanding of the human body is still relatively limited"

Second of all, I did not say the "Endocrine gland" but the "Endocrine System" i.e. a network of glands; because,
1. the network topology of the "Endocrine System" - as opposed to the "integrated configuration" and "direct interaction model" of the Nervous System - is essential to what I have suggested above.

2. Besides the topology and configurational differences, the chemical structure of the substances that bind to the target site/cell and provoke a reaction are often of a higher complexity. Of course, there exists chemically complex neurotransmitters, but often the transmission of the signal is achieved with chemically simple ions.

Would the distributed topology of the Endocrine System and the "loosely coupled interaction" model make the interaction less predictable and more inefficient? My inclination is to say "yes."

Would the integrated configuration and direct interaction model of the Nervous system make the interaction more predictable and efficient? My inclination is to say "yes."

Would the mechanisms of how a chemically complex "message," "control word" or "notification" binds to the target site/cell - i.e. recognized - make the interaction less predictable and more inefficient? My inclination is to say "yes."

Would the mechanisms of how a chemically simple "message," "control word" or "notification" binds to the target site/cell - i.e. recognized - make the interaction more predictable and efficient? My inclination is to say "yes."

They are two different models of interaction, communication, control etc. and the above is inspired by their counterparts in the IT and engineering world.

Again, one should consider the above cautiously.

Scientifically speaking the human body when is deceased, the spirit doesn't die with it; but goes and joins into another entity within the planet earth or the universe.

I think that science and religion do not mix well, just like driving and drinking don't. I think that science should not be used to justify or discredit faith and religious beliefs. Faith is "absolute" i.e. it is beyond our (rational) understanding.

How do you understand "the spirit doesn't die with it; but goes and joins into another entity within the planet earth or the universe."
My understanding of "the spirit of someone" in this context is "the memory of someone."

I don't know her work; but, based on the above, I would consider what Zabel Yessyan describes as the imprisonment, confinement or suffocation of the "soul" by the "spirit."
What would you recommend to read? Thanks.
The only one that comes to mind now is the Bible (the new testament).

Did Zabel Yesayan write the New Testament? *confused*
I'm sorry for the confusion, but I meant a work of Zabel Yessayan that talks about what you have described previously.
In any case, I've read the New Testament many many times when growing up - though I don't remember much.

No; but about four semesters ago when I attended a philosophy class, I bought the book, but I read another one instead. I still have the book and I should be reading it. I know of another person who raved about it.

I hope that you'll enjoy reading it.

[Sip]

Re: does age matter?

Take the example of UML for instance. A complete failure. Even the complexity of software systems cannot be captured by "universal" metamodels. We are confronted with the eternal return of domain-specific stuff.

Just wanted to say I couldn't agree more!

[Siamanto]

Re: does age matter?

Subject: Off Topic
Mood: Playful

axel, I knew that you would mention it and I was not wrong. You're still so predictable!

I see. You purposedly left this allusion so as to drag me into the "Love and Romance" forum. How wicked of you.

And you could not predict it???
LOL By the way, in what forum were you when reading my post in the "does age matter?" thread???

Amot kez! Do you expect me to spread the Muslim faith on an Armenian forum?

???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Cioran

I replied as if I misread "Cioran" as "Coran" and confused myself to suggest that your "What about Cioran?" was confusingly not explicit enough.

Definitely yes but I am not a huge fan. Too cynical. Still powerful insights and elegant style. Got a few writings of his on my bookshelf.
How could you possibly relate this post-fascist to "the gang of four" (I am not talking design patterns here)?

Yes, he may seem to be less "rébarbatif" than GoF (not the Chinese!)

How about relating him to the Chinese GoF? Would it be OK?










Subject: Conceptual Modeling
Mood: Serious

OK, getting back to the thread's original topic...

Good idea! I have separated my reply to your post into "Conceptual Modeling" and "IT specific" so the latter can be ignored by those who have no interest in what is exclusively IT specific.
I think that it may be a good idea to move the IT specific discussion to another thread???

I was wondering whether we could use XMI to exchange SCML (Siamanto Conceptual Modeling Language) models and use existing MOF-based tools to compare/merge/consolidate and possibly navigate through the latter. (To your credit) reverse-engineering your posts appears to be a real challenge though.

Drop the 'L' and consider the 'M' as "Model." My purpose is/was not to discuss and/or validate methodology; in other words, my purpose was not to redefine meta-concepts, but redefine concepts in a (M1-layer) model.

Assume that I'm using UML and make note of inaccuracies when reverse-engineering. So Yes, XMI can be used to exchange SCM. Good enough?

Another reason for mentioning MOF is that the more you go up the meta hierarchy the less the (m*-)model changes so I was hoping to find some stability by going all the way up to M3.

That's an abstraction into a meta-level. As I have said above, my goal is neither of epistemological nor methodological nature.
If it is of interest, please feel free to create a separate thread to discuss it.

As to universal modeling, could we say it is a myth, a mere illusion, a mirage (speaking of oasis...)?

It may be an illusion but it helps bringing different views closer and become more easily exchangeable, interchangeable and understandable; speaking the "same" - relatively speaking - language has practical consequences and it helps. However, believing in the absoluteness of a "Universal Model" is of religious nature.

You may have noticed that in my comment about Silverstone, "universal" was related to "enjoying consensus." (Are you familiar with Quines' concept of "inter-subjectivity" and how it compares - or equates??? - to "objectivity?")

Despite all, "universal modeling" is not a pure "myth, a mere illusion, a mirage" because it has shaped our civilization in the past and it continues to do so: it gives a direction.









Subject: IT specific, Off Topic
Mood: Serious

(I for one, do not like MOF and its subsets or pseudo-subsets (EMF) very much. Way too limited. Way too static)

EMF has a completely different purpose than MOF and is not a subset of the latter - but, yes, as of today, is limited to a subset of it.

EMF is a framework offered within Eclipse to facilitate and support MDA based software development while MOF is a facility to semantically specify/describe modeling languages, facilitate and allow their interchangeability etc.
In other words, EMF is development tool while MOF is methodological tool and have different purposes and Use Cases.

I believe that EMF is - as of today - limited to a subset of UML for practical and historical reasons:
1. If you consider the features of existing MDA tools, you would notice that they offer limited capabilities and are mainly focused on Class Diagrams - some started to consider Activity Diagrams as BPEL is becoming more widely accepted
2. If you consider MDA driven software development in application shops, you will notice that it is limited to - in almost all cases - to the generation of simple Java/XML/DDL/C/C#/... artifacts from Class Diagrams - and in few cases, BPEL from Activity Diagrams

So considering
1. The reality of the industry and its immediate requirements
2. The fact that building a comprehensive framework that covers all of UML is an enormous project that
2.1 Requires many resources - that may not be unavailable in the Open Source community, or can be better used on more urgent projects
2.2 Has a high risk of failure - because of the size of the project
Initially, limiting EMF to a small subset of UML seems as a wise project management decision. Incremental development better manages risk. What do you think?

What do you mean by "static?" Thanks!

Take the example of UML for instance. A complete failure. Even the complexity of software systems cannot be captured by "universal" metamodels. We are confronted with the eternal return of domain-specific stuff.

.
Considering how and why Software Development has evolved from "hacking" to become an engineering discipline - and becoming a science???, then I would not say that UML is a total failure.

It is beyond the scope of this thread to discuss how UML, Object Oriented views, Patterns, etc. have impacted the software development process; however, I would succinctly mention that UML - that is widely accepted in IT shops - helped improve:
1. Documentation and communication
2. Clarity of concepts
3. Quality of software
4. Reusability of software artifacts
5. Repeatability of software development
6....

Even the complexity of software systems cannot be captured by "universal" metamodels. We are confronted with the eternal return of domain-specific stuff.

Is your concern "universal metamodels" or (M1-layer) "Universal Models" as the ones that I have mentioned in my previous post? I would answer differently.

Also, what "domains" do you have in mind? Thanks!

[axel]

Re: does age matter?

By the way, in what forum were you when reading my post in the "does age matter?" thread???

I was browsing the forum's main page when I saw your username appear next to the subject "does age matter?". I figured, he must be discussing Nietzsche and Data modeling. Let's have a closer look.

EMF has a completely different purpose than MOF and is not a subset of the latter - but, yes, as of today, is limited to a subset of it.

When I mentioned EMF, I was refering to Ecore (the bootstrapped M3 model) which more or less corresponds to EMOF (Essential MOF), a subset of MOF which was extracted from MOF in version 2.0, somewhat aligning the latter with the EMF implementation.

'Domain-specific':
When you attempt to capture some information, either you reuse an existing metamodel such as you UML and then profile it so as to make it fit your requirements* or you define a brand new metamodel which espouses the domain you want to target.
You can consider UML as domain-specific and it can be of help in certain contexts but clearly its pretentions were far greater at its inception.

* The UML profile even in version 2.0 is too weak in that regard. Providing such a mechanism is implicit recognition of the predictable (one-size-fits-all never works) failure of UML as a universal language. (note that the terms 'language' and 'metamodel' are often used interchangeably)

EMF:
EMF is not exactly a small subset of UML (or only to the extent MOF is). It is better not to consider it as such in order to avoid confusion (even though it bears a lot of similarity with the class diagram) if only for the fact it stands at a different M-level. EMF is actually used to define M2 models (aka metamodels) such as UML (an implementation of UML2 based on Ecore is in fact provided as a related project)

'Static':
By "static" I mean that the structural features of instances of M3-level types (often refered to as metaclasses) are statically determined by the M3 type being instantiated (=> all metaclasses have the exact same structure), you don't have a stereotyping mechanism (as in UML) let alone OCL-like boolean expressions that would allow for further specialization on an instance basis. (True with EMF you have annotations which roughly amount to stereotypes and associated tagged values but these have no underlying schema. Both values and (implicit) structure are specified on an instance basis)

From now on I will let Seapahn answer your posts on technical subjects

Despite all, "universal modeling" is not a pure "myth, a mere illusion, a mirage" because it has shaped our civilization in the past and it continues to do so: it gives a direction.

Quoting from Gustave Le Bon (I gave the reference in another thread)

"Depuis l'aurore des civilisations les foules ont toujours subi l'influence des illusions. C'est aux créateurs d'illusions qu'elles ont élevé le plus de temples, de statues et d'autels. Illusions religieuses jadis, illusions philosophiques et sociales aujourd'hui, on retrouve toujours ces formidables souveraines à la tête de toutes les civilisations qui ont successivement fleuri sur notre planète."

[axel]

Re: does age matter?

I replied as if I misread "Cioran" as "Coran" and confused myself to suggest that your "What about Cioran?" was confusingly not explicit enough

This is confusingly confusing.

[Sip]

Re: does age matter?

From now on I will let Seapahn answer your posts on technical subjects

You might want to save that for an occasion when a real punishment for Siamanto is needed. As mediocre as I am with technical stuff, I really have no clue about all this modeling talk so all I will be good for is to anger 'her' to unbelievable extents

A few months ago a big shot manager at a fairly large company (who shall remain nameless) was showing me their wonderful new software design methodology. He kept repeating over and over how now they are in business of "modeling" and they are no longer referring to things as "software development".

He had one of his top engineers explain a bunch of things for hours showing charts and graphs and meta-this and meta-that and how they had spent the last 6 months developing all these models. What was the end result you ask? It was the "automatically generated and then manualy revised and completed" controller firmware for a low power wireless light switch that even a below average recent college grad would have been able to write in less than a week (including debug time).

Now I am not saying UML doesn't have its uses ... but ironically enough, there is a very specific domain in which UML will be useful and it's by no means "universal" (although it somehow tends to really appeal to the 'manager' types).

[Siamanto]

Re: does age matter?

I replied as if I misread "Cioran" as "Coran" and confused myself to suggest that your "What about Cioran?" was confusingly not explicit enough.

This is confusingly confusing.

LOL If showing love may be a good way of showing the meaning of love; maybe confusing is a good way to explain (a) confusion???

From now on I will let Seapahn answer your posts on technical subjects

LOL With a hacker who - metaphorically speaking - finds challenging to build a shack when others are focusing on building complex pharaonic structures such as high traffic airports?

In any case, if you see any sense in your suggestion, then why don't you practice what you preach? I would be certainly amused.
One question: would you open the thread in the "Intellectual Lounge" or, more appropriately, in the "Jokes & Humor" forum???


P.S. Thanks for the reply; unfortunately, being busy, I can reply to, at most, one post - that requires focusing - a day. I'll reply to your post sometime this week. There's at least one other post that I will have to consider before yours. Sorry for being slow!