Tom - exactly, exactly. [I've added this reply to the Peirce list
since I think your diagrams/models are excellent examples of the
Peircean categories and the Peircean relations in diagrams].
1] Your 'knowledge graphs: ' Internationally, all individuals of
all ages can see and understand the visualization of knowledge in a
graph. The format is simple; nodes are connected by lines where each
is labelled with a common name."
And " knowledge graphs are derived from the provable reality in each
of the Peircean Categories of Possibility, Actuality, and Necessity.
In each category and as a whole, knowledge graphs expose the logical
truth."
The point is, graphs show Relations - not words or single object
units - but the relations these 'objects' can or do have.
2] And - I noticed something else: You wrote about 'knowledge domain
layers' that: "an ontology document [can] only import another ontology
document from the same layer or from a lower level layer". This is
exactly the same ontological format that is being set up and
discussed here - with mathematics being a 'lower level layer' than
the phaneron'.
So - your functional use of the Peircean framework - in 'model
driven architecture - shows us that Peirce provided a logical
analysis of reality.
Many thanks for the link.
Edwina
On Sun 25/07/21 10:41 AM , Tom Tinsley ttins...@tampabay.rr.com
sent:
Edwina,Here are some dynamic diagrams in each Peircean category :
https://otterserver.com/logically-consistent-knowledge-graphs/peircean-categories-visualization/Tom
Tinsley
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: Edwina Taborsky Date:
7/25/21 8:55 AM (GMT-05:00) To: tabor...@primus.ca,
peirce-l@list.iupui.edu, "John F. Sowa" Cc:
ontolog-fo...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thinking in
diagrams vs thinking in words
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list
I wonder if diagrammatic thinking is focused more on relations than
specific and separate individual units, i.e., verbs and
subjects/objects.
That is, I long ago noticed that some indigenous languages which are
oral rather than literate- and I'd include ancient Chinese and Latin -
have the verb at the end of the sentence. So, the format is
Subject/Object/Verb. Our modern format - and that includes modern
Chinese, has put the verb in between the Subject and Object. So, the
meaning becomes X does something to Y...and in a way, X is not
affected by the action.
To me, this old oral format means that the subject and object are
together co-involved within the actions of the verb. I think this
fits in with Peirce's triadic format where the Representamen/Sign
mediates between the Object and Interpretant. And where the
Interpretant does affect the original Object. So, the format here is
X/Y are involved in an action. ..and both are affected by this action.
So- I'm wondering if diagrams are also easier to understand because
they clarify the relations that are going on.
Edwina
On Sat 24/07/21 6:06 PM , "John F. Sowa" s...@bestweb.net sent:
Edwina,
Yes. That is a major advantage of diagrams:
ET> I agree that diagrams are more fundamental than words, since
their
attributes are less open to multiple interpretations. That includes
both the written and spoken word, with the latter overlaid with
meanings provided by tone and rhythm and the former open to many
misinterpretations because of the lack of both. [As we find in
email
and text messages].
The phaneron, as initially experienced, is independent of any bias.
But every step of interpreting the experience adds biases from
the individual's conscious knowledge, unconscious habits, cultural
traditions, and linguistic constraints of vocabulary, syntax, and
semantics. Those biases may be good, bad, or neutral.
As an example, the subjects for a psycholinguistic experiment
were asked to sort photographs into similar groups, according
to any grouping they considered relevant. Some of the
subjects happened to be native speakers of Yoruba, which has
a color classification that is very different from English
and other European languages.
After the subjects did their sorting, the experimenter said
"Think in Yoruba." The subjects laughed and immediately resorted
the photographs in a completely different grouping. When they
switched from thinking in English to thinking in Yoruba, they
completely reorganized their interpretations.
And by the way, I also cc'd a note to Peirce-L, which I had sent
to Ontolog Forum with the title "Modal Logic is an Immense
Swamp". That note addresses issues about logic for which
Peirce's writings are still at the forefront of research today.
Before reading that note, I recommend the slides I cited in it:
http://jfsowa.com/talks/eswc.pdf [1]
1. For a brief overview of existential graphs, skip to slides
14 to 21 of escw.pdf.
2. For issues about mapping English (and other languages) to EGs,
see slides 21 to 35.
3. For the differences between thinking in diagrams and thinking
in words, see slides 36 to 52.
To complete the loop, I'm also cc'ing this note to Ontolog Forum.
John
Links:
------
[1] http://jfsowa.com/talks/eswc.pdf
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the
body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
