Ontological commitment: cultural Bias and Euro/Anglo Saxon centrism

I quote from an earlier email by Paola as a rebuttal to my post about KR
being a domain of mathematics the following  snippet:

*3. Cultural Bias and Eurocentrism*

*Many widely used systems were created in Western institutions during
specific historical periods.*
*Thus they often reflect:*

*Western cultural priorities*

*Colonial perspectives*

*Christian or Euro-American worldviews*

Yet when we look at the following page and the references, it seems that
only Eurocentric and Anglo-Saxon perspectives are acknowledged.

https://philpapers.org/browse/ontological-commitment

Many other cultures have takes on epistemology and ontology and also
ontological commitment.

In simple terms. Language is used to communicate. We can communicate about
things that exist and things we can think of or create in our minds.

E.g. Sanskrit is very useful in precisely describing things. It is also a
main vehicle used in Buddhist philosophical texts.
But there are many other cultures with "precise" languages, including
ancient Greek and Latin.

I am very reluctant to call Quine's definition the accepted standard.

And it so happens that a generalized MATHEMATICAL framework can be created
that includes Quine's interpretation as an option.

That is exactly the idea behind my mandala graph theory.

For KR for AI I  can agree that ontological commitment is necessary
precisely because of the intrinsic nature and objective of AI.

But knowledge can be represented mathematically and linguistically without
the type of ontological commitment needed for AI.

Milton Ponson
Rainbow Warriors Core Foundation
CIAMSD Institute-ICT4D Program
+2977459312
PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
Aruba, Dutch Caribbean