Jon wrote, [[ Peirce's existential graphs are a general calculus for expressing the same subject matter as his earlier logic of relative terms and thus they serve to represent the structures of many-place relations. ]]
Peirce wrote, [[[ this system is not intended as a calculus, or apparatus by which conclusions can be reached and problems solved with greater facility than by more familiar systems of expression. Although some writers have studied the logical algebras invented by me with that end apparently in view, in my own opinion their structure, as well as that of the present system, is quite antagonistic to much utility of that sort. The principal desideratum in a calculus is that it should be able to pass with security at one bound over a series of difficult inferential steps. What these abbreviated inferences may best be, will depend upon the special nature of the subject under discussion. But in my algebras and graphs, far from anything of that sort being attempted, the whole effort has been to dissect the operations of inference into as many distinct steps as possible. —CP 4.424 (c.1903) ]]] [[[ The sheet of the graphs in all its states collectively, together with the laws of its transformations, corresponds to and represents the Mind in its relation to its thoughts, considered as signs. … The scribed graphs are determinations of the sheet, just as thoughts are determinations of the mind; and the mind itself is a comprehensive thought just as the sheet considered in all its actual transformation-states and transformations, taken collectively, is a graph-instance and taken in all its permissible transformations is a graph. Thus the system of existential graphs is a rough and generalized diagram of the Mind, and it gives a better idea of what the mind is, from the point of view of logic, than could be conveyed by any abstract account of it. —CP 5.482, 1906 ]]] Gary f. -----Original Message----- From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawb...@att.net] Sent: 5-Apr-16 18:00 To: g...@gnusystems.ca; 'Peirce List' <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems Of Interpretation On 4/5/2016 9:11 AM, <mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca> g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > By the way, since Jon’s diagram is nothing like an Existential Graph, > I > don't know why Jon refers to the central unit in it as a “spot.” > Peirce uses that term only in the context of Existential Graphs, > which are > also not diagrams of the sign-object-interpretant > relation. > Gary, List, Peirce's existential graphs are a general calculus for expressing the same subject matter as his earlier logic of relative terms and thus they serve to represent the structures of many-place relations. Cast at that level of generality, there is nothing to prevent them from being used to express the special cases of relative terms that we need in a theory of triadic sign relations, for example, terms like “s stands to i for o” or “__ stands to __ for __” depending on the form one prefers. People sometimes get wigged out about the fact that we have to use sign relations in order to mention sign relations, but the fact is that we do that all the time whether we are using Peirce's semiotics or not. Peirce just makes the process a whole lot clearer than most others do. Regards, Jon
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
