Auke> I was thinking in terms of goals, i.e. what is the object you try to understand, not credentials. I can connect Jon's answer to my question with his line of reasoning and I did like that. There might be differences in the goals and then it is always better to asses and value the differences, instead of fighting about who is right.
I have been doing research and teaching in logic, computer science, computational linguistics, and artificial intelligence for many years. In 1976, I had published an article on Conceptual Graphs in the IBM Journal of Research and Development. Then in 1978, I came across Don Roberts' book on EGs, and it was exactly what I was looking for. Peirce's EGs were far more elegant and powerful than the AI research in the 1970s. (including my own). I immediatetly adopted it as the foundation for the book I published in 1984. I continued reading Peirce's other writings and various publications about Peirce since then. Then in 2001, I came across Michel Balat's transcription of a first draft of L231 (mistakenly classified as R514). I realized that it was an excellent introduction to EGs, and I posted a copy with commentary on my web site: http://jfsowa.com/peirce/ms514.htm . I also realized that this version was far superior to Peirce's earlier versions. In particular, I used it to solve a previously unsolved research problem from 1988. I published the solution in Semiotca in 2011: http://jfsowa.com/pubs/egtut.pdf . In April 2015, I presented a lecture on related issues at a Peirce Session at the APA conference in Vancouver. In December of 2015, I presented an extended version at a workshop that Zalamea sponsored in Bogota. And in 2018, I publishted a 76-page version that spelled out all the details. The following slides are minor revisions of the 2015 version: http://jfsowa.com/talks/ppe.pdf . Slide 2 has a link to the 2018 publication in the Journal of Applied Logics. The workshop in Bogota included leading experts in existential graphs. Nobody raised any objection or even any comment about my use of the 1911 version of EGs. For mathematicians and logicians, clarity and precision are essential. The formal structure is everything, and the words are of minor interest. The fewer, the better. As for Jon's comments about earlier versions, any quotations prior to June 1911 are irrelevant. But I found Jon's comments useful for pointing out issues that I decided to restate more clearly. 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
