From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu>

Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:36:01 -0500

Message-ID: <3A689721.60DC3C9F@oakland.edu>

To: RDF Logic <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>, Arisbe <arisbe@stderr.org>, Conceptual Graphs <cg@cs.uah.edu>, SemioCom <semiocom@listbot.com>, Mary Keeler <mkeeler@u.washington.edu>, Jack Park <jackpark@VERTICALNET.COM>, John F Sowa <sowa@bestweb.net>

Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:36:01 -0500

Message-ID: <3A689721.60DC3C9F@oakland.edu>

To: RDF Logic <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>, Arisbe <arisbe@stderr.org>, Conceptual Graphs <cg@cs.uah.edu>, SemioCom <semiocom@listbot.com>, Mary Keeler <mkeeler@u.washington.edu>, Jack Park <jackpark@VERTICALNET.COM>, John F Sowa <sowa@bestweb.net>

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤ Continuing With: > | Charles Sanders Peirce, > | 'Reasoning and the Logic of Things', > | 'The Cambridge Conferences Lectures of 1898', > | Edited by Kenneth Laine Ketner, > | With an Introduction by Kenneth Laine Ketner & Hilary Putnam, > | Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992. > | > | AKA "Detached Ideas On Vitally Important Topics" (DIOVIT), > | 'Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce', CP 1.616-677. I appear to be in full "channeling" mode now, and so I will just funnel what I most humbly reckon are the most pertinent texts into the site of your sight here, and try to save all of the explanations and the justifications for yet another time, but later. One or two words of excuse, though, might be of service in priming the pump of discussion. My ultimate purpose is to open your minds just a bit to the mere off-chance that Charles Sanders Peirce is the root of an alternate tradition in dealing with the issues of "hermeneutics", that is, of "interpretation", "semantics", "semiotics", and "pragmatics", a tradition that is a genuine resource, that is not yet altogether absorbed by, supplanted by, or redundant in comparison to what is most likely the more familiar line of thinking -- traceable through the works of Frege, Russell, Whitehead, and Wittgenstein -- and thus it has the potential to provide what many of us opine, and continue to e-pine, would be rather "new" and what we think will be more adequate and powerful answers. But I know that this is most likely the work of not a little time ... Just by way of an introduction, here are the links to all of my papers that are currently available on-line. The HTML (Has Tim Made Lunch?) on the one paper that I did myself -- the first and the last one I ever did! -- is pretty bad, as all "Critics of Hypertext Rhythm" have never ceased to tell me, so if you are so bold as to want to print it out, let me know and I can e-mail you a Word 2000 redaction: http://www.shss.montclair.edu/inquiry/fall95/awbrey.html http://www.door.net/arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/awbrey/integrat.htm http://www.door.net/arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/awbrey/inquiry.htm e-nuff, already, with the pre-rambles! let's get down to that e-constitution! ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤ We begin our sampling of DIOVIT at page 150, with a bit of history: | It is now time to explain to you this Logic of Relatives. | I will first give a chronology of the most important papers. | I shall not mention any that are not quite fundamental. Relation | was recognized as a part of the subject matter of logic by Aristotle | and all ancient and medieval logicians. There is a tractate 'De Relativis' | probably dating from the 11th century appended to the 'Summulae of Petrus Hispanus'. | Ockham and Paulus Venetus treat of it in their extended treatises on logic. Leslie Ellis | made a single obvious remark on the application of Algebra to it which Professor Halsted | thinks makes him the author of the logic of relatives. This remark is really fundamental. | Yet it was exceedingly obvious; and was not followed out. Next came DeMorgan's Memoir. | Then in 1870 [came] my first mode of extending Boole's Logical Algebra to relatives. | In 1883 I gave what I called the 'Algebra of Dyadic Relatives', which Schröder has | fallen in love with. In the same volume O.H. Mitchell, in one of the most suggestive | chapters that the whole history of logic can show, gave a method of treating a logical | universe of several dimensions, which I soon after showed amounted to a new algebraic | method of treating relatives generally. I call it the 'General Algebra of Logic'. | I think this the best of the algebraic methods. In 1890, Mr. A.B. Kempe published | an extended memoir on 'Mathematical Form' which is really an important contribution | to the logic of relatives. Schröder's third volume treats of the subject at great | length, but in the interest of algebra rather than in that of logic. Finally about | two years ago, I developed two intimately connected graphical methods which I call | Entitative and Existential Graphs. | | RATLOT, pages 150-151. To Be Continued ... Psahmes, the Schrivener -- Now that's a pseudonym! -- Locally, Nominally, Jon Awbrey ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤Received on Friday, 19 January 2001 14:35:41 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:33 UTC
*