Gary F., List:
I agree that the color assignments are arbitrary, as evidenced by Peirce's
own inconsistency, and thus strictly conventional rather than iconic. As
he himself recognized, that shortcoming pertains to tinctured surfaces just
as much as colored Spots and/or Lines. The main utility that I see for the
latter comes when we analyze a *discrete *predicate into a hypostatically
abstracted subject and a *continuous *predicate. The color reflects the
Universe to which the Dynamic Object denoted by the Spot belongs, as well
as the corresponding continuous predicate that the Line attached to it
signifies. However, I am starting to question this approach myself, in
part because of another passage that I recently encountered, which also
addresses your last point below.
CSP: We remark among Existential Graphs two that are *continuous*; that
is, they may be regarded as consisting of parts; but all parts of them are
perfectly homogeneous with the whole. Continuity is not an Existential
character; it only belongs to the Object of the nature of Laws.
Consequently, the Continuous Graphs do not express Existential Predicates
but only Logical Predicates. The two continuous Graphs are the Blank, which
expresses Coëxistence and the Line of Identity, which expresses Numerical
(i.e. individual) “Sameness.” The peculiarities of these two Graphs are
partly Essential, and belong to the Phaneron, and are partly Accidental.
This connection through the blank depends on the Creative power of the mind
by which it makes *entia rationis*. The triad of combination is
*associative*. All this should be said at this point. And point out that it
supposes a *triad*.
That ordinary Graphs are connected with the Blank is a totally different
manner from their connection with one another is to be regarded as an
accident of the particular mode of diagrammatization employed. In employing
Graphs to study the properties of the Phaneron, two different ways of
conceiving the relations of ordinary Graphs to the Blank, or Graph of
Coëxistence, present themselves. One is to consider the latter Graph as a
Graph of Inexhaustible, because Infinite, Valency; the other is that every
Graph should be conceived as having an additional Peg by which it is joined
to the Blank, or Graph of Coëxistence or Cobeing. And now the part of the
Blank to which any Graph is joined should be regarded as a triad, so that
the valency is not diminished by the junction. I mean that if *p* represents
a Peg of the general Graph of Coëxistence, and the Graph *g* is joined to
that Graph, it should be conceived as joined to a special portion of the
Blank which is triadic, so that the junction still leaves a Peg free. For
the representation of identity, on the other hand, the mode of
diagrammatization of the System is entirely satisfactory, the special Graph
of Teridentity being introduced when it is needed. (R 499s; 1906)
I take "Existential Predicates" to be what I have been calling "discrete
predicates," and "Logical Predicates" to be what Peirce elsewhere called
"continuous predicates." This then seems to warrant my claim that the
continuous *relations *of coexistence and identity can also be
characterized as continuous *predicates*. The noteworthy difference
between these and *other *continuous predicates, besides their being
*symmetrical
*(cf. R 284:88[83]; 1905), is that although they are generally treated as
*dyadic*, they are really degenerate forms of *triadic
*relations--tercoexistence
and teridentity--in the sense that there is always room for another
attachment.
CSP: It follows in the first place that every line of identity ought to be
considered as bristling with microscopic points of teridentity ...
In the second place it follows that using “coexistence” in such a sense
that it is mere otherness, then since if anything is not coexistent with
itself the same is equally true of anything else ... it follows that a very
appropriate symbol for ter-coexistence ... is simply any blank point of the
sheet ... (SS 199; 1906 March 9)
This explains what I noted in my post yesterday--the continuity of
(ter)coexistence and (ter)identity is expressed with an infinite series of
indefinite intermediate subjects, while that of "possessing a character" or
"standing in a relation" is not. The former have "Inexhaustible, because
Infinite, Valency"; while the latter have finite valency, but are still
indecomposable once everything requiring Collateral Experience/Observation
has been thrown into the subject. Put another way, we can add any number
of Graphs to the Sheet of Assertion, and any number of branches to a Line
of Identity at Spots of Teridentity; but a Line for "possessing the
character of" (or "belongs to the class/collection of") could only be
attached to *exactly two *Spots*. *Moreover, another convention would be
needed for which Spot belongs at each end of the latter, since the
signified relation is *asymmetric*.
Perhaps I should adopt one of Peirce's proposed solutions after all--use
red for a Concretive Spot ("Solomon"), blue for an Abstractive Spot ("wisdom"),
and purple for the Line between them ("possesses"); or simply revert to
traditional black Lines of Identity and use a two-Peg Predicate Spot for
"possesses" (the character of) attached to a red Concretive Spot on the
left Peg and a blue Abstractive Spot on the right Peg. The latter is
consistent with using a Predicate Spot for "stands" (in the relation of)
that has three or more Pegs, but would be very cumbersome for any sentence
with multiple adjectives. Maybe I will just go back to one of my earlier
ideas--color only each Subject Spot (if anything), and consider its single
Peg to represent the corresponding continuous predicate.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 6:42 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jon, I find it very hard to get interested in any scheme for translating
> logical modalities into colors, because the association between the one and
> the other is completely arbitrary, and one would have to memorize the whole
> arbitrary scheme in order to use the system; and it seems unlikely to me
> that the system would be useful enough (for any practical purpose *I* can
> imagine) to make it worthwhile to learn it (or design it in the first
> place). This of course is just my personal response, based on my own
> limitations, and implies nothing about the real usefulness of your inquiry
> to others.
>
> Likewise I haven’t yet found any regular use for the 66 sign types that
> Peirce named in 1908, so whenever you use those names, I have to either
> look them up again to get some inkling of what they denote, or else just
> pass by your explanation without responding to it, and usually I end up
> doing the latter.
>
> In the end I’m left with just this one comment on your latest post:
>
> I don’t see “continuous predicate” and “continuous relation” as
> interchangeable, and I don’t see the line of identity (or coexistence) as a
> *predicate*, because I don’t see it as *signifying* anything. Do you? And
> if so, what advantage do you see in looking at it this way?
>
> Gary f.
>
-----------------------------
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 .
