Words, as noted, are often a frail reed but they have a purpose. If logic
it actually universal its universality is not served by locking its
meanings in mathematical symbols and abbreviations. Universality is
achieved fallibly by the use of words to form hypotheses and then by
scientific parsing of the truth or falsity of a hypothesis, to determine a
fallible but consequential truth.. If one seeks as I do to show that a
value such as tolerance or helpfulness or democracy is logical I can only
do so in words. It is my problem to determine universal statements that
have a scientific basis. I would add an ontological basis. I do not claim
success but words are the medium. The terms used for the logic of graphs
and other forms of representation that are not verbal may have interest but
they hardly are relevant to what I am suggesting. Of course, the notions I
have, built somewhat on Wittgenstein and even Nietzsche, are hardly
Peircean because my impression is that he may have felt there was a
correspondence between words and his graphs that made them interchangeable
or even above words in ontological relevance. If he elevated graphs of his
or any other sort to the exalted position of qualifying as a viable
conclusion to any practical iteration of the pragmatic maxim, I think he is
possibly wrong. Words have to do, and I make that as a logical statement
based on fallibility and history. Graphs and such are a language game and
they may have use, but then again they may be ethically neutral or a
temptation to play god.

amazon.com/author/stephenrose

On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 11:32 AM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote:

> In 1992, the book _Semantic Networks in Artificial Intelligence_
> contained about 25 chapters on graph notations for logic.
> It was also published as a collection of related articles in
> the journal _Computers and Mathematics with Applications_.
>
> After 20 years (2002), the articles became available for free
> download, but I just discovered them today.  Three of them
> discuss existential graphs:
>
> Don D. Roberts, The existential graphs
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0898122192901274
>
> Robert W. Burch, Valental aspects of Peircean algebraic logic
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0898122192901285
>
> John F. Sowa, Conceptual graphs as a universal knowledge representation
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0898122192901377
>
> But the following article from 2014 is much better than the above:
> From existential graphs to conceptual graphs
> http://jfsowa.com/pubs/eg2cg.pdf
>
> To view or download any of the other articles, see
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/computers-and-mathemat
> ics-with-applications/vol/23/issue/2
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/computers-and-mathemat
> ics-with-applications/vol/23/issue/6
>
>
>
> -----------------------------
> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .




Reply via email to