MIMS and MESSy categories (original) (raw)

MIMS 1.01-.03: Philosophy Integration Self test

>>”What makes a good philosophy, Shifu?” ~15 year old student at Wu-Tao-Di Academy In this letter: The 3 requirements of a good philosophy MIMS as a MIMS Standards, evolution, and expansion of the MIMS Introducing the Altstream Heat Test

Entry on "Categories" for the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy

What is the difference between categories that seem philosophically weighty, and those that do not? Does the set of these categories (often a set that is structured in some way, frequently in the form of a tree) constitute the structure of the world in a very general sense, or is this set rather indicative of the structure of our thinking about the world? What role do ontological categories play in solving philosophical problems, or in formulating philosophical theories? This article considers all of these questions, preceded by some brief historical remarks on three particularly noteworthy systems of ontological categories (section 1: Aristotle, Vaiśeṣika, Kant). We will then discuss the demarcation problem amongst the categories, considering how to tell the philosophically relevant sheep from the irrelevant goats (section 2). This will be followed by a closer look at their nature (Are these categories in the world or in the mind? Section 3), finishing off by remarks on the epistemology of our categorial knowledge (section 4), and on the function of theories of philosophical categories in philosophy and beyond (section 5).

SF000002 - MIMS 1.1: MIMSology

The Author works with chatGPT to explore and further define the study and evolution of MIMS Philosophy, provided in this SF as a placeholder in the overall MIMS Data Supertree 1 ABSTRACT This paper further explores the MIMSology concept presented in MESSr0011. Firstly, that the philosophy itself needs a study, and studiers. Second, that the study, true to MIMS philosophy’s pragmatic and futurizing penchant and required aspects (to be mimsical, or retain a high MAMA%), the initiation of MIMSology to be in the vein of evolving the philosophy. Not only due to technological advancements, philosophical self-consistency, the presence of AI, etc. but clearly to avoid all SMIMbolist strains. Readers should understand that it is assumed within ‘studies’ of Academia, Quackademia, and POS Trashademia, there is bound to be a varying spectrum of infective philosophical approaches, whose unseen/unknown roots are in ((agenda)) rather than a) a philosophy of Science or b) genuine empirical interest. That may seem… chincy or mean-spirited… but strategically and tactically speaking, it’s the only way to be sure to to prevent accidental and purposeful sabotage, from the outside. It’s one thing for it to be a separate philosophical strain, such as Rozin’s Methodology. It’s another thing if it is a matter of mind-control, or ‘opening the gates’ (Trojan Horse) to permit a flood of invasion from the outside. Similar as per how the Libertarian Party was flooded with unhappy progressives and Democrats after the DNC disenfranchised Marxists in 2016 by rigging the primary. Within a decade, numerous ‘libertarians’ were promoting pseudo-anarchical, or pseudo-socialist left wing versions of the philosophy, devoid of direct connection to Classical Liberalism and Constitutionalism, as well as health Patriotism. Some of them had a pro-governmental shade of Nationalism, or an unhealthy dose of light extremism.

(Meta) Philosophy: searching for its subject-matter .docx

Explorations of the traditional branches of philosophy and (the seemingly endless differentiation of the philosophical discourse into) new, highly specialized, always more microscopic, areas of doing professionalized philosophy, in an attempt to reveal traces of and hints to the remaining, if any, valid and meaningful subject-matter of philosophizing. This is executed against the background and the fact that the socio-cultural practice of philosophy have lost most, if not all, its areas of investigation to other disciplines and inter-disciplinary fields such as the Cognitive Sciences.....

Categories in Knowledge Organization

The categorial approach was formulated by Ranganathan in the 1930s in his Colon Classification and its conceptual and theoretical basis was laid down in his Prolegomena. This view influenced significantly the search for a new approach to knowledge organization that would overcome the rigidity and limitations of enumerative models. The categorical approach or the facet-analytical approach has since become the single most predominant approach in knowledge organization leading to the development of a number of special classification schemes for micro-subjects, new general classification schemes such as BSO (and revision of existing schemes, e.g. BC2), indexing systems such as PRECIS and POPSI, revision and / or development of controlled vocabularies to conform to the faceted approach, emergence of new tools such as the Thesaurofacet and Classaurus, and in recent years, facet analysis has even been used in website design. This paper explores some schemas and raises a few questions as to the relevance of these in the digital environment.

Classification and its Discontents

The purpose of this paper is understanding the operation of types and typologies in colonial thought and to inaugurate a theory of types that can account for the transferral of categories across knowledge registers.