Mike, list
Thanks for your comments - and - A few more comments:
1] I'm very hesitant to bring in the attribute of 'context' to
analysis of the categories. I consider them universal forces - and am
cautious that 'context' reduces them to relativistic forces.
You wrote: " 3ns is the future both because of its prescissive
logic, and it represents the continuous whole to which the
cosmos is equilibrating. In contrast, for local circumstances
and objects, the generalizing continuity is towards habit
acquisition, not necessarily a time construct such as the
future"
As for the notion of 'future' - since, as I understand it, the
Peircean future is open and abductive rather than determined, then
I'm not sure that there is a 'continuous whole' in the future. And
habit acquisition is in itself, open, even in its own actions of
trying to restrict this openness! The incredible nature of Thirdness
is that there are three modes! 3-3, 3-2 and 3-1. That inserts both
actions: those of communal stability and those of local open
contextuality. That ensures both stability and openness...
2] Yes, I prefer the 'umbrella-spoke' as an image of the triad.
Peirce himself used it...1.347]. The thing about the umbrella spoke
is that it can show how an Interpretant Relation can move into
becoming an Object Relation in another triad. And, it shows that no
triad is isolate; all are networked into a complex system..
3] You wrote: " Three others, close to the root of the root,
that also give me a great deal of difficulty are 'space',
'time', and 'light' (photons). I tend to view 'light' at the
actual transition between 1ns and 2ns, with both 'time' and
'space' following in 2ns thereafter:
Agree. With regard to time, as you know, I prefer Matsuno's
analysis. As for space - difficult; As you know, following the
analysis of Atmanspacher, I've divided space into four key zones
expressed by the Relations: internal local 1-1; internal global 3-2;
and external local 2-2 and external global 3-1. That leaves me with
the problem of what I call the 'interface relation' of 2-1 which is
both internal and external - and 3-3 which I view as aspatial and
atemporal.
That is, I consider the six Peircean Relations as operating within
specific attributes of both space and time.
With regard to 'light', I'd consider it free energy.
Edwina
On Mon 08/03/21 11:15 PM , Mike Bergman [email protected] sent:
Hi Edwina,
Your consistency of viewpoint is a really important contribution
to this list and to me. Thanks.
Because you raised so many good points below, I will weave my
commentary into the text where relevant:
On 3/8/2021 8:11 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Mike, list
A few further comments on your chapter - which I liked very
much - and your table.
I was about to comment on 'my' terms for time [present,
perfect, progressive] vs your terms [present, past, future] but
see that you've already done that in your notes. My terms come
rom the exceptional analysis of time by Koichiro Matsuno. The
point is, that 3ns is not simply functioning in 'the future'
but, as laden with habits, is also bringing with it information
from the past. But, as its information is always general, then,
the distinction between past and future is irrelevant, and time
becomes adaptive or progressive.
I agree about not making specific concepts equivalent with 1ns,
2ns or 3ns absent a context. In the context of time, 3ns is the
future both because of its prescissive logic, and it represents
the continuous whole to which the cosmos is equilibrating. In
contrast, for local circumstances and objects, the generalizing
continuity is towards habit acquisition, not necessarily a time
construct such as the future. The context of the universal
categories is absolutely relevant and essential. With only three
degrees of freedom for any context, arriving at an assertion is
often not straightforward. I really have come to appreciate the
discipline and mindset that a triadic viewpoint brings to my own
thinking. It is kind of addictive. But it is also not always easy
to noodle. I will again look at Matsuno's information.
My quibble about the spatial definition of 3ns as a 'triangle'
is that I reject the whole image - such a very common image - of
the Peircean triad [O-R-I] as a triangle. Such a form nullifies
the actual nature of the triad as one where the Interpretant is
not a mimetic copy of the Object but is an action of growth of
information. Yeah, I know, and I acknowledge your view
in Chap 1 [1] of my book, also available for free PDF
download [2]. I specifically note your views on page 11. Static
representations are hard; I have come to prefer dynamic
presentations. I like a centroid when capturing transitions, but I
have also seen it misused as an ersatz fourth category
(Hermann-Pillith and Salthe are two such). I have come to think
there is no true icon for the universal categories. I like both
equilateral and 'umbrella spoke-triad' options, but again it is
contextual.
I also have a problem with defining 1st as a 'form'. Since it
has no existentiality 'in itself', then I don't see how it can
have a form, which to me, at least, involves a 'cell wall' so to
speak, a specific image. And of course, I reject the notion
that 1ns involves ideas since an idea involves Mind. I prefer
to consider Ideas as an abductive property and define abduction
as functioning within the categorical mode of 3-2... Thirdness
operating within physical connections; that is, Mind connectinn
to multiple local informational data - and - coming up thereby,
with a hypothesis to explain/organize this data.
I agree with your questions about 'form'. I too am not
comfortable with its current placement. Three others, close to the
root of the root, that also give me a great deal of difficulty are
'space', 'time', and 'light' (photons). I tend to view 'light' at
the actual transition between 1ns and 2ns, with both 'time' and
'space' following in 2ns thereafter. This current working view is
based on my applying prescissive logic to these concepts, still
fraught with deep and cosmic (metaphysical?) assumptions. I would
truly love to hear your detailed thoughts on these three
concepts. Actually, I would truly love to hear anyone's
thoughts on these concepts.
Thanks, Mike
All in all - a great chapter. Thanks for letting us read it.
Edwina
On Mon 08/03/21 4:35 PM , Edwina Taborsky
[email protected] sent:
Mike, list
Yes - I'm a strong supporter of the open dynamism of Peirce -
cf also Philip Rose's 'emergent evolution' and the notion of
the growth of information within the triadic process, where
the interpretant is in an asymmetrical relationship to the
object. This process can account for the growth of complexity
and diversity within the universe - a growth which is never
random but adaptive and thus, a process of Mind.
Edwina
On Mon 08/03/21 3:39 PM , Mike Bergman
[email protected] sent:
Hi Bruce, Mauro,
As promised, I have split some of the earlier hierarchy
paper commentary with this one focusing on your ideas to
date.
First, Mauro, Bruce was the author of the comment that
prompted your response, so thanks, Bruce, for
responding. And, Bruce, thanks for spending considerable
time putting forth your ideas around a mandela-strip
twisted into a closed loop. I am interested in learning
more and I will try to keep some of these concepts in
mind. I see the regularity and continuity in your
thinking. However, I think there are some Peircean
viewpoints (and my own!) where, if I understand your
ideas correctly, I may see or interpret things a bit
differently.
First, I very much like the dynamism of Peirce's
semeiosis. Basically, he postulates a continuous process
of sign-making and -representing: signs building upon
signs and leading to more signs and more representation.
In this dynamic process, subsequent iterations approach
a bit more closely the 'truth' of the dynamic object of
the sign, with the modes and acceptances of the evolving
representations ultimately a social process of sign and
terminology consensus. In this manner, then, rather than
seeing the integral, closed mandela circle, I see
something as evolving dynamically over time. I also
believe knowledge needs to be treated in an open-world
manner [3]. In line with Peirce's strong beliefs in
phenomenology, I would envision something more akin to
this representation of an electromagnetic wave:
It kind of approaches the look of the mandela if one
looks down the trajectory (propagation) of the wave,
like looking down the barrel of a gun. 😉 This is
probably way off from what you where thinking, but does
capture my sense for the need of dynamism.
Second, Peirce's acceptance and then advocacy for
'absolute chance' prevents absolute regularity or
complete reductionism. Variablity is the bogey in this
scenario, and is the driver for evolution, one source of
the dynamism noted above. At the miniscule scale, we
encounter quanta, but not apparently at larger scales of
space or time. It is not clear to me how chance fits in
to your 'strip' concept.
Third, from a visualization standpoint, I have seen
these figures of spinning triangles around a centroid
(the classic three-body problem), as the triangle sides
are varied in length. It is mesmerizing, and there are
patterns (such as reflected in fractals or cellular
automata) where one can see self-organization emerge or
perhaps new structures that represent new hierarchical
levels. I know it is pretty abstract, but this figure is
something I refer to on occasion when I want a more
dynamic feel of how a Peircean basis to 'seeing' the
world may work out:
As I suggest in the hierarchy paper [4], new levels
in natural hierarchies may arise because new
organizations of growing numbers of current structures
may better dissipate available free energy than
continuing to do "more of the same". Chance in 1ns is
what supplies this variation.
Mauro's thoughts on 'line and continuum' I think might
also be productively related to Peirce's writing on
infinitesimals. Peirce thought deeply about Zeno and the
basis for lines and continuity. I've dabbled a bit, but
am by no means a mathematician. An OK starting place is
Google Scholar:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=peirce+infinitesimals
and then look for the listings with PDFs that you may
read.
Hope this is helpful, Bruce. I'm glad you have found
some stimulation to share your work.
Best, Mike
On 3/7/2021 8:02 PM,
[email protected] wrote:
@font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2
4;}@font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2
4;}@font-face {font-family:Georgia; panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 4 5 2 3
3;}@font-face {font-family:"Segoe UI"; panose-1:2 11 5 2 4 2 4 2 2
3;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}a:link,
span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}.MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
Mauro – I like this model you suggest, and
the links you point to.
I want to find a single closed algebraic
form from which I can derive all semantic
structure – and my guess is, that process
will probably look like the kind of graph you
drew. Or include those kinds of elements.
I want to derive all the basic kinds of
mathematical and semantic analysis from a
common “code base” – a common
underlying/fundamental partition from
which/though which all coded distinctions and
compositional structures can be derived, or from
which they can be constructed – and on the basis
of which, all mathematical computation can flow.
Speaking of lexicographical order, an
important theme is that it is about ”total
order” – not “partial order”.
So – an instinctive guiding principles is
Create a generalized extremely simple master
form that is in “absolute order” –
everything “100% linear in every
dimension” – and show how this form
contains everything in general terms – and then
show how it also contains along the way all
conceivable “partially ordered” structures.
I’m not sure if something like this is
what Mike is talking about when he says
Hierarchies in knowledge systems express
subsumption relations that have many
flexible variants, which we can represent
algorithmically, and thus computationally.
“Subsumption relations with many flexible
variants”
So this seems exciting: nest all partial
orders within absolute order.
We need to understand “the whole” in a
100% ordered way – an example of “the
whole” perhaps being something like “the
human body” (Leonardo’s “Vitruvian Man”) or
maybe the global ecology/economy.
Define “absolute order” over something
that complex, maybe around the concept of
“homeostasis” – the governing principle that
keeps the interdependent moving parts in
balance.
So, in this case “absolute order” does
not mean “top-down fascist
authoritarianism” or ramrod do-it-my-way
dictatorship. It means “Governance OF the Whole
BY the Whole.” Idealized global democracy in
balance, replicated at all levels of scale.
Mauro, I need to give your interesting idea
more thought.
- Bruce
Hierarchical Cantor set in absolute linear
order
Bruce Schuman
Santa Barbara CA USA
[email protected] [5] / 805-705-9174
www.origin.org [6] / www.integralontology.net [7]
From: [email protected]
On Behalf Of Mauro
Bertani
Sent: Sunday,
March 7, 2021 6:38 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re:
[ontolog-forum] Hierarchy, a la Peirce -
reply to Mike
Hi Mike,
about what you wrote
On Sat, 6 Mar 2021 at 00:30,
wrote:
Then this strip – now defined as
containing in general form everything
we know about epistemology and
semantics and hierarchy and
abstraction and taxonomy and
conceptual structure – goes through
this mysterious “twist” which “closes
the space” and forms this amazing
“closed loop” which seems to contain
all of cognitive science within its
single boundary. All elements within
that boundary are defined as
“intervals” – bounded ranges with
lowest and highest values in some
dimension. By virtue of “the twist”,
the entire loop becomes a single
boundary – a single “edge” -- which
contains nested it (bounded within it)
within all possible taxonomic
distinctions in their general form.
As a single boundary, the entire
structure takes the same form as “the
real number line” – it IS “the
continuum” in a closed loop form.
When seen in the flat plane, the
“upper ontology” is the unbounded
infinite and the ultimate meaning of
“unit”, and the lowest level
approaching infinitesimal
differentiation, and the taxonomic
categories we want to position at the
bottom of our taxonomic hierarchy.
When we close the loop, the infinite
and the infinitesimal are mapped
straight into each other as one
continuous edge – where their
differences are only apparent when
viewed in the flat two dimensional
perspective. Rotated through the
twist, all the differences disappear
and all that remains is unity. I
think this is analogous to the
Buddhist cosmology of “the
beginningless universe” – maybe it’s
the same idea. There are books out
there on the subject “A universe from
nothing”. I think these are all
related.
I made a theory that partly reflects
your vision. Very briefly it is
represented by this diagram
there is the concept of line and
continuum. Let's assume we have a
hierarchical tree with simple
concepts and a hierarchical tree with
propositions. We combine these two
trees according to the phrases Subject -
Predicate - Object. We get a number. This number
can be related in new
subject-predicted-object phrases.. We
thus obtain increasingly complex
concepts, represented by increasingly
large numbers, which are arranged on the
line according to their complexity.
similar a https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_set [9]
aand https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeb_graph [10] .
I hope this can help you.
Mauro
From:
[email protected] [11]
On
Behalf Of Mike Bergman
Sent:
Thursday, March 4, 2021 8:23 PM
To:
[email protected] [13];
[email protected] [14];
[email protected] [15]
Subject:
Re: [ontolog-forum] Hierarchy, a la
Peirce
Hi Bruce,
I am glad this is a line of discourse
you want to pursue (and have pursued
since at least 1994 as your link
indicates). I'm happy to engage on any
questions or topics; there are many
other Peirce afficiandos on these lists
that also have helpful insights. For
now, I only comment on one of your
points below:
On 3/4/2021 9:31 AM,
[email protected] [16] wrote:
Wow. I love this. I've been writing
on this subject forever -- saying more
or less the same things and citing the
same authors -- e.g., Herbert Simon.
I'm going to print your article, Mike,
and take a close look at it. Back in
the early days, I bought every book
there was on Hierarchy. You make
basic points in your opening that I’d
say pave the way towards a very
powerful general theory of
epistemology.
The basic themes you outline in this
article are at the essence of my
notion of “Closed Loop Interval
Ontology” – which is hierarchical
exactly as you describe, with the
addition that the framework is defined
as a closed loop interconnecting these
“levels” into a single closed
mathematical structure.
My early stuff on this subject is
here: http://originresearch.com [17]
The trick here seems to be – that
this thesis is so powerful, it becomes
combinatorically explosive – heading
towards the fabled “theory of
everything” – maybe in explicit
epistemological detail.
Interesting that you say that
“natural hierarchies are real” – which
opens the way to some additional
complexity or levels of inclusion.
Maybe there is a “hierarchical
relationship” across levels of
reality, such that the kind of
practical-real-world “reality” defined
by Barry Smith can be mapped directly
into an absolutely abstract model
which I would say is a “science of the
artificial”, as Herbert Simon might
have described it. “Does absolute
abstraction exist in nature”?
My own view is that Peirce's universal
categories of Firstness, Secondness, and
Thirdness provide this level of
"absolute abstraction [that] exists in
nature". I don't know if you realize
that some of your earlier
references to Ogden and Richards [18]
were actually a paraphrase of Peirce's
insights. My own research focus has been
on trying to understand the 'mindset' of
Peirce's universal categories, expressed
in perhaps a 100 different ways in his
writings, that sets a frame of reference
for tackling knowledge representation
(epistemological) questions at virtually
any level. Ogden and Richards picked up
on one with respect to meaning, but
there are other examples galore across
Peirce's writings.
What Peirce really offers, IMO, is a
way to break away from either-or
Cartesian mindsets that always pit
issues as win-lose propositions, and
ignore the "fact" that one can both be a
realist and an idealist. By accepting
the reality of absolute chance we are
also removing false dichotomies between
determinism and evolution. As with
wave-particle duality or quantum v
classic physics, Cartesian thinking is a
cultural and intellectual posture that
leaves us stymied and frustrated. I much
prefer the trichotomous view of
actuality bracketed by chance and
continuity, the essence of Peirce's
universal categories.
BTW, there is no reason why this
viewpoint can not inform the structure
and basis of a top-level (upper)
ontology. (One that I humbly feels
offers an integrative framework for ANY
knowledge graph or ontology.) That is
exactly the approach we have taken with
our KBpedia [19] knowledge
structure, and its top-level KBpedia
Knowledge Ontology [20] (KKO).
Best, Mike
Fascinating article and project,
Mike. A lot to talk about.
Thanks!
- Bruce
Hierarchies — real or artificial
— abound to help us organize our
world. A hierarchy places items
into a general order, where more
‘general’ is also more ‘abstract’.
The etymology of the word hierarchy is
grounded in notions of religious and
social rank. This article, after a
broad historical review, focuses on
knowledge systems, an interloper of
the term hierarchy since at least the
1800s. Hierarchies in
knowledge systems include
taxonomies, classification systems,
or thesauri in library and
information science, and systems for
representing information and
knowledge to computers, notably
ontologies, knowledge graphs, and
knowledge representation languages.
Hierarchies are the logical
underpinning of inference and
reasoning in these systems, as well
as the scaffolding for
classification and inheritance.
Hierarchies in knowledge systems
express subsumption relations that
have many flexible variants, which we
can represent algorithmically, and
thus computationally. This article
dissects the dimensions of that
variability, leading to a proposed
typology of hierarchies useful to
knowledge systems. The article argues
through a perspective informed by
Charles Sanders Peirce that natural
hierarchies are real, can be logically
determined, and are the appropriate
basis for knowledge systems.
Description logics and semantic
language standards such as RDF or OWL
reflect this perspective, importantly
through their open-world logic and
vocabularies for generalized
subsumption hierarchies. Recent
research suggests possible mechanisms
for the emergence of natural
hierarchies involving the nexus of
chance, evolution, entropy, free
energy, and information theory.
Bruce Schuman
Santa Barbara CA USA
[email protected] [21] /
805-705-9174
www.origin.org [22] /
www.integralontology.net [23]
-----Original Message-----
From:
[email protected] [24]
[25] On Behalf Of Mike Bergman
Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021
7:57 PM
To: [email protected] [26];
[email protected] [27]
Subject: [ontolog-forum]
Hierarchy, a la Peirce
Hi All,
I am pleased my open-access paper on
hierarchy in knowledge systems, as
informed by my understanding of CS
Peirce, has been published by IEKO:
https://www.isko.org/cyclo/hierarchy [28].
I hope you enjoy!
Thanks, Mike
--
All contributions to this forum are
covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the
license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see
http://ontologforum.org/info/ [29]
---
You received this message because
you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and
stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to
[email protected] [30].
To view this discussion on the web
visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/[email protected]
[31].
--
All contributions to this forum are
covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the
license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see
http://ontologforum.org/info/ [32]
---
You received this message because you
are subscribed to the Google Groups
"ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and
stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to
[email protected] [33].
To view this discussion on the web
visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/007701d71217%2472829ff0%[email protected]
[34].
--
"[..] events are primarily linguistic or
cognitive in nature. That is, the world
does not really contain events. Rather,
events are the way by which agents
classify certain useful and relevant
patterns of change."
Allen and Fergusson
"No, no. History of Eternity. At
first I wanted to find every single
one of the buyers to apologize
because of the book and also to thank
them for what they had done. There is
an explanation for that. If you think
of thirty-seven people—those people
are real, I mean every one of them
has a face of his own, a family, he
lives on his own particular street. Why,
if you sell, say two thousand copies, it
is the same thing as if you had sold
nothing at all because two thousand is
too vast—I mean, for the imagination to
grasp. While thirty-seven people—perhaps
thirty-seven are too many, perhaps
seventeen would have been better or even
seven—but still thirty-seven are still
within the scope of one's imagination."
http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/4331/the-art-of-fiction-no-39-jorge-luis-borges
[35]
--
All contributions to this forum are covered
by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license,
and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see
http://ontologforum.org/info/ [36]
---
You received this message because you are
subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum"
group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
receiving emails from it, send an email to
[email protected] [37].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/caahn2n4ri4hdoexz1s782b851_vj34ybbxsc8tpc5iqdmb9...@mail.gmail.com
[38]. --
All contributions to this forum are covered by
an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and
how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see
http://ontologforum.org/info/ [39]
---
You received this message because you are
subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum"
group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
receiving emails from it, send an email to
[email protected] [40].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/00d501d713bf%240d0a7770%[email protected]
[41].
-- __________________________________________ Michael K. Bergman
Cognonto Corporation 319.621.5225 skype:michaelkbergman
http://cognonto.com http://mkbergman.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman
__________________________________________
-- __________________________________________ Michael K. Bergman
Cognonto Corporation 319.621.5225 skype:michaelkbergman
http://cognonto.com http://mkbergman.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman
__________________________________________
Links:
------
[1] https://www.mkbergman.com/publications/akrp/chapter-1.pdf
[2] https://www.mkbergman.com/publications/akrp/chapter-1.pdf
[3]
https://www.mkbergman.com/wp-content/themes/ai3v2/files/2009Posts/the-open-world-assumption-elephant-in-the-room.pdf
[4] https://www.isko.org/cyclo/hierarchy
[5] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(
[6] http://www.origin.org/
[7] http://www.integralontology.net
[8]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[9] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_set
[10] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeb_graph
[11]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[12]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[13]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[14]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[15]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[16]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[17] http://originresearch.com
[18] http://originresearch.com/sd/sd4.cfm
[19] https://kbpedia.org/
[20] https://kbpedia.org/docs/kko-upper-structure/
[21]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[22] http://www.origin.org
[23] http://www.integralontology.net
[24]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[25]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[26]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[27]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[28] https://www.isko.org/cyclo/hierarchy
[29] http://ontologforum.org/info/
[30]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[31]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/[email protected]?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
[32] http://ontologforum.org/info/
[33]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[34]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/007701d71217%2472829ff0%[email protected]?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
[35]
http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/4331/the-art-of-fiction-no-39-jorge-luis-borges
[36] http://ontologforum.org/info/
[37] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(
[38]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/caahn2n4ri4hdoexz1s782b851_vj34ybbxsc8tpc5iqdmb9...@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
[39] http://ontologforum.org/info/
[40] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(
[41]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/00d501d713bf%240d0a7770%[email protected]?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected]
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.
