Rorty and representations

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@Peter_Kropotkin

now the next point that Rorty writes about in regard to representation,
is the word Ontological… he quite often refers to ‘‘ontological representation,’’
well, we have a sense of what the word representation means, but how
does the word representation work with the word ‘‘ontological?’’

Ontological: relating to the branch of metaphysics dealing with
the nature of being: Ontological arguments…

showing the relations between the concept and categories in a subject
or domain… an ontological database… an ontological framework for
integrating and conceptualizing diverse forms of information…

ontology is the study of existence…

so, it looks to me, and I could be very, very, very wrong, but
it looks to me like ontology is the overall field of study
and representation is a part of that field of study…
representation is a subset of ontology…
and both of which are maps/models of something…

Perhaps this is closer, @felix_dakat:

@Ichthus77

Existence is only a perfection if you’re talking about the good idea that must exist (in action) in order to be true. The idea that existence is a great making quality over nonexistence never made any sense to me. But it does make sense to me that in order for something to be considered true (not to mention great) there must be an example or demonstration of it.

…and you can really only understand that within the context of the Harmonic Triads (be/ontology, do/existence, end/teleology).

only way i’ll ever vibe w an ontological argument.

isn’t it weird how “exist” can mean do or be

isn’t it weird how value can mean do or end

isn’t it weird how virtue can mean be or end

we all confoosed