[Inquiry] Re: Futures Of Logical Graphs -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

FOLG.  Discussion Note 34

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

JR = John Rooney

Re: FOLG 28.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-November/003200.html
In: FOLG.     http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-November/thread.html#3165

JR: I read the 'Law of Forms' years ago.  Please look at its appendix.
    As I recall the author winds up proving contradictions such that
    anything follows.  The whole enterprise goes onto the rocks.

John, Peirce List, Cybernetics List,

No, that isn't what's going on there.  And I haven't come to the place for talking
about that yet.  But you are right in thinking that there is much to be explained.
I ran into the graphical logics of CSP and GSB about the same time, in 1968 or so,
and it took the better part of the next decade to even begin figuring out what was
going on there, in the meantime being driven back to mathematics to find the proper
context for understanding what they were hinting at.  The short answer, as I would
now express it, is that it has to do with algebraic extensions of logical algebras.
What GSB expressed in terms of imaginary truth values, CSP had earlier approached,
if not quite broached, in terms of logical values on the boundary between falsity
and truth.

But it wouldn't be wise to race too far ahead of ourselves.
For the time being, I am focusing on the issues of placing
logical calculi in a sign-relational context, not only for
the clarity that this brings to logic but because it gives
us non-trivial lab cases of semiotic systems for exploring
the various properties associated with that sort of system.

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o