[Inquiry] Re: Zeroth Order Ontology

[Jon Awbrey]

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

ZOO.  Discussion Note 2

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

An aside is dictated in the script at this point,
for the sake of anticipating an objection that I
know to have a non-zero probability of harboring
itself in the minds of some readers.  I promised
you a ZOO, but so far it looks like nothing but
ZOL all the way down, so where's the ontology?

To that just let me just protest that trying to
do ontology without the -logy is like trying to
do physics without the mathematics, a feat that
I would not attempt in this or any other arena.

At this zeroth level of being, a ZOO is nothing
more or less than the genus of what we normally
call a "universe of discourse", involving fixed
rings of a circus that we draw in venn diagrams
and train to do tricks with "semantic tableaux",
also known as "truth tables".  Yes, I know it's
riskier than it sounds, but we will be cautious,
and take it slow.

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o