Seeing this week’s reading topic I was already intimidated. I generally do not do well with philosophical rants and wonderings of why things are the way they are; I struggle with abstract concepts. From what I understood of the article (which I am still trying to wrap my head around as I type this sentence) is that someone like me would subscribe to Robert Horton’s primary theory. Primary theory is ‘common sense’ and object based which is cross-cultural. In other words, it is a set of accepted paradigms. It doesn’t concern itself too much with ‘why’ or ‘how’ things are but just that they exist. This was pretty much where I got lost. This article was wordy and weird. I found it difficult to follow and it made my already loose understanding of what ontology was even worse. The article was somehow explaining how geomorphic processes occur while simultaneously attempting to explain the concept of ontology. I understand why ontology is important – especially given the rise of information sharing (the internet). If everyone has a different concept of what a ‘mountain’ is then it becomes very difficult to collaborate on projects or even to understand products (such as maps). What I don’t understand is why this article needed to make an already murky subject so much more dense and confusing.
Until next time,
Nod