The described approach seems to be unjustifiably complicated. For example, in the described scheme, there are concepts "plastic" and "seat", i.e., the class "plastic" can have subclasses "plastic seat" and "plastic spoon", and the class "seat" can have subclasses "wooden seat" and "plastic seat". As a result, we have two different subclasses indicating the same "plastic seat".
A simpler version: there is an (axiomatic, i.e., not defined in any way) concept THING; Each thing can optionally mean a set of things, i.e., play the role of a concept, and can indicate an element of a set (class).
And the intersection of sets forms an anonymous concept ( plastic | seat -> plastic seat).
It is possible for different paths down the specialization tree to arrive at the same multidimensional pocket. As a result, there are multiple paths for generalization - plastic seat may generalize to Plastic or to Seat.
It's frustrating to see some sparks of reason drowned in a huge pile of rhetorical fluff. You really need to do some major housekeeping upstairs.
The described approach seems to be unjustifiably complicated. For example, in the described scheme, there are concepts "plastic" and "seat", i.e., the class "plastic" can have subclasses "plastic seat" and "plastic spoon", and the class "seat" can have subclasses "wooden seat" and "plastic seat". As a result, we have two different subclasses indicating the same "plastic seat".
A simpler version: there is an (axiomatic, i.e., not defined in any way) concept THING; Each thing can optionally mean a set of things, i.e., play the role of a concept, and can indicate an element of a set (class).
And the intersection of sets forms an anonymous concept ( plastic | seat -> plastic seat).
More details: https://agieng.substack.com/p/semantic-storage
It is possible for different paths down the specialization tree to arrive at the same multidimensional pocket. As a result, there are multiple paths for generalization - plastic seat may generalize to Plastic or to Seat.