Gary F., List: I agree that Peirce ultimately gave up on iconizing modality in two-dimensional Gamma EGs, instead settling for the R 514 tutorial that only covers Alpha and Beta. A three-dimensional implementation might be more successful in that regard, consistent with his description of the Universes as "so utterly different that we may well liken them to a set of three mutually perpendicular directions from which any object may be viewed" (R 300:72[37]) and as "different dimensions of the logical Universe" (R 300:80[37]) whose "mutual relations,--imaged by perpendicularities in sets of three,--are relations between different Modalities" (R 300:76[38]). I wonder if he was hinting at this further in the following passage from a different manuscript, which I came across yesterday.
CSP: But in one respect at any rate [the system of] Existential Graphs is essentially different from language. Namely, instead of being merely protracted in time, its expressions are diagrams upon a surface, and indeed must be regarded as only a projection upon that surface of a sign extended in three dimensions. Three dimensions are necessary and sufficient for the expression of all assertions; so that, if man's reason was originally limited to the line of speech, (which I do not affirm,) it has now outgrown the limitation. (R 654:6-7; 1910 Aug 19) I now see even more clearly what you meant about our different "approach[es] to Peircean studies" and the danger of "sink[ing] into purely terminological issues," so I will not belabor my points about "Universe" and "Experience" any further. I was not "ignoring Peirce’s careful distinction between the [polyadic] continuity of the two-dimensional sheet and that [linear continuity] of the one-dimensional line," I was commenting on it. I assume that Peirce was quite intentional about specifying that a Line of Identity is *heavily* drawn, such that it has a very visible *width *to it, while a Cut is *thinly *drawn. After all, he wrote that the Phemic Sheet represents "the field of attention," including "those places where, nothing being scribed, no particular attention is paid"; while the Line of Identity, which is "generated by the continuity of the different places of a heavy dot," represents "the continuity in attentive observation of an individual object" (R 300:39-41[39-40]). Again, the Line of Identity for an individual is *only *continuous because the Phemic Sheet for the Universe of Actuality, which underlies it, is *also *(and more fundamentally) continuous--except where a Cut creates a *discontinuity*. I was also not ignoring Peirce's "statement that the three Universes cannot be represented by the icons which make up the Graphs, and can only be represented by differentiation of the surfaces on which those icons are drawn." I was simply noting his other statement that the differences of the three Universes correspond *only *to differences of the *Objects *to which the Graphs refer, *not *the propositions as a whole or their predicates. Two-dimensional EGs can only denote Objects that *exist *(or not) in the Universe of Actuality. I look forward to reading what you have to say about Cuts, especially given your claim that it "spells trouble for the whole system of EGs." Are you perhaps referring to Peirce's remarks in R 300 about the inadequacy of representing "the concept of *Sequence*" as "a composite of two Negations"? Regards, Jon S. On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 7:35 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, my responses inserted. > > > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > *Sent:* 4-Mar-19 18:05 > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism > > > > Gary F., List: > > GF: Is it not remarkable that after working with EGs for over 10 years, > including lecturing and publishing about them, he should be so unsure of > his ability to describe the System or even state its purpose? > > JAS: I suspect that it was quite clear in his own mind, > > GF: Peirce was quite capable of saying what was clear to him and what > wasn’t. Your suspicion in this case directly contradicts what Peirce > actually says on that point in the sentence I quoted. > > and the struggle was primarily with how to explain it to others in a way > that they could easily understand. It seems plausible that he felt like he > had failed to do so in all of that previous lecturing and publishing. As > John Sowa has repeatedly pointed out, he finally came up with a tutorial on > EGs that successfully accomplished this objective the following year > (1909), in R 514. > > GF: Neither in MS 514 nor in any later presentation that I’ve seen does > Peirce make any attempt to iconize the three Universes of Capacities, > Actualities and Tendencies (by using different surfaces and “provinces”). > He explains in the draft of MS 300 what motivated his 1906 attempt to do > that (in the “Prolegomena”) and why that attempt is clearly inadequate, > especially in its iconicity. That’s why I say that Peirce abandoned the > gamma graphs — which he had said in 1903 were far more important than the > alpha and beta. That leaves us with a system which, as John S. has pointed > out repeatedly, is logically equivalent to his earlier algebraic notation, > rather than being a major improvement on it as Peirce had hoped (until > 1908). This could also explain why Peirce abandoned the attempt to base his > proof of pragmaticism on EGs. > > GF: This is what the Graphs and their transformations are about: the > Universe of Discourse, or simply the Universe. This Universe is to > discourse as the phaneron is to experience. > > JAS:I agree with the first statement, but not the second; as I already > stated, I believe instead that the three Universes are to Experience as the > three Categories are to the Phaneron. > > GF: You are trying to regularize Peirce’s usage of the term “Universe” by > ignoring its actual context in MS 300. When in doubt about what a term > *denotes > *(as we usually are with common nouns), the context is the main clue for > directing our attention, as Peirce himself points out. > > The Phaneron consists of whatever could be *presented *to the mind, while > Experience consists of whatever is *urged *to the mind; in other words, > there is a *compulsive *aspect of the latter that is lacking, or at least > less prominent, in the former. > > GF: Now you are ignoring the contextual use of the term “Experience” in > this part of MS 300. I see this as a recurring problem with your attempt to > regularize Peirce’s terminology, especially in respect to terms which were > *not* neologisms but common philosophical terms. > > GF: I call this triad of Universes (or subuniverses of the one Universe) > phenomenological because they are different ways in which the Universe > “makes its power felt” experientially. > > Again, I worry that this conflates phenomena in their 1ns (Phaneron) with > phenomena in their 2ns (Experience), since I associate such forcefulness > primarily with the latter--although reaction as 2ns is obviously one of the > irreducible elements that we directly observe in the former. The "Outward > Clash" that ultimately leads us to the hypothesis of Reality (cf. CP 8.41; > 1885) is a matter of *actual *Experience, not just *possible *"seeming"--which > is why it is studied in Normative Logic as Semeiotic, rather than > Phaneroscopy. At least, that is how I see it right now. > > GF: The three Universes correspond in logic to the modalities of the > propositions represented by the Graphs. > > JAS: That is not what Peirce wrote in the quoted passage. > > GF: No, it is an inference from what Peirce wrote, based on his writings > about EGs and modality in 1906-08. > > CSP: It is clear that their differences are not differences of the > predicates, or significations, of the graphs, but of the predetermined > objects to which the graphs are intended to refer. (R 300:38-39) > > The different Universes do not correspond to the modalities of the > *propositions > *represented, nor their Interpretants as signified by their *predicates*, > but rather their Objects as denoted by their *subjects*--which, as you > noted, must already be known to both Graphist and Interpreter from previous > Collateral Experience. In EGs, these subjects are represented by the *heavily > *drawn Lines of Identity, whose continuity is derived from that of the > underlying surface of the Sheet of Assertion, > > GF: Here you are ignoring Peirce’s careful distinction between the > continuity of the two-dimensional sheet and that of the one-dimensional > line, which makes a difference in what they can represent iconically; also > his statement that the three Universes cannot be represented by the icons > which make up the Graphs, and can only be represented by differentiation of > the surfaces on which those icons are drawn. > > which represents the Universe--just like the continuity of a white chalk > line is derived from that of the clean blackboard on which it is marked > (cf. CP 6:203; 1898). The *thinly *drawn line of a Cut is then a > *discontinuity > *between the Universe of Truth (*recto*) and the Universe of Falsity ( > *verso*), which is why in a Ligature the Line of Identity *inside *a Cut > must be understood as distinct from the one *outside *it. > > GF: Peirce does not deal with the cuts in the text I quoted, but he does > in other parts of the “Bedrock,” in a way that spells trouble for the whole > system of EGs. I’ll have to deal with that in a separate post. > > GF: Jon, since I think your approach to Peircean studies is rather > different from mine, I haven’t responded to your post in detail, lest we > sink into purely terminological issues. > > Understood, although I hope that this post helps clarify the relevance of > my previous one. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
