We are only now beginning to see how this works. Clearly one of the mechanisms for picking a reality is the sociohistorical sense of what is important — which research program, with all its particularity of knowledge, seems most fundamental, most productive, most penetrating. The very judgments which make us push narrowly forward simultaneously make us forget how little we know. And when we look back at history, where the lesson is plain to find, we often fail to imagine ourselves in a parallel situation. We ascribe the differences in world view to error, rather than to unexamined but consistent and internally justified choice.
Herbert J. Bernstein • “Idols of Modern Science”
The discussion to follow takes up the mechanics of parsing cactus language expressions into the corresponding computational data structures. Parsing translates each cactus expression into a computational form articulating its syntactic structure and preparing it for automated modes of processing and evaluation.
For present purposes it is necessary to describe the target data structures only at a fairly high level of abstraction, ignoring the details of address pointers and record structures and leaving the more operational aspects of implementation to the imagination of prospective programmers. In that way we may put off to another stage of elaboration and refinement the description of a program which creates those pointers and transforms those graph‑theoretic data structures.
Resources
cc: Academia.edu • BlueSky • Laws of Form • Mathstodon • Research Gate
cc: Conceptual Graphs • Cybernetics • Structural Modeling • Systems Science
Inquiry Into Inquiry 
Pingback: Survey of Animated Logical Graphs • 8 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Cactus Language • Discussion 3 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Survey of Animated Logical Graphs • 8 | Systems Community of Inquiry