On 8/11/2018 11:25 AM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
But aren´t EGs _the_ proper tool for ontology? ... Somebody else please say something.
Peirce and I would agree. But the people who are working on ontology know very little about EGs. I've been writing and lecturing about EGs for years, especially to people who know little or nothing about Peirce. That audience is critical for expanding interest in CSP and EGs. Following are the slides of three lectures. I recycle and add to the slides over time, and these collections keep growing: Introduction to existential graphs: http://jfsowa.com/talks/egintro.pdf Peirce, Polya, and Euclid: Integrating logic, heuristics, and geometry: http://jfsowa.com/talks/ppe.pdf Natural logic: http://jfsowa.com/talks/natlog.pdf If anybody would like to use these slides in their teaching or lecturing, you have my permission to download and use them. If you would like to use shorter excerpts, please let me know. John
----------------------------- 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 .
