List: I need to correct an error in my first post from yesterday.
JAS: The "fundamental symbol" in both systems is *juxtaposition*, which by convention asserts *conjunction *in Existential Graphs vs. *disjunction *in Entitative Graphs. In other words, when multiple propositions appear unenclosed on a sheet, the claim in Existential Graphs is that *all *of them are true, whereas the claim in Entitative Graphs is that *exactly one* of them is true. Hence the relation represented by a pair of Existential Graph-instances on the same sheet is that of *coexistence*, while the relation represented by a pair of Entitative Graph-instances on the same sheet is that of *conditional necessity*--if this, then not the other, and vice-versa. I was wrongly thinking that the disjunction in Entitative Graphs is *exclusive*, but it is actually *inclusive*, which is why Roberts called it "alternation." Any number of propositions that appear unenclosed on the same sheet can be *true*, but they cannot all be *false*; in other words, the claim is that *at least one* of them is true. Hence the relation represented by a pair of Entitative Graph-instances on the same sheet is still that of conditional necessity, but expressed differently--if not this, then the other, and vice-versa. I apologize for the mistake. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 7:52 AM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R., List: > > Hoping to resume this discussion, I checked to see whether Don Roberts > happened to say anything in his 1973 book, *The Existential Graphs of > Charles S. Peirce*, about why Peirce named his initial system of logical > graphs "entitative." Sure enough, I found the following paragraph on page > 30, which concludes chapter 2 on "The Development of Existential Graphs." > > DDR: Why did Peirce choose these names? Because the "fundamental symbol" > of the one system "expresses an entitative relation", and the fundamental > symbol of the other "expresses the relation of existence" (Ms 485, p. 1). > The second is easy enough to understand. In EG, to scribe or write > something is to "aver that such a thing *exists*" (Ms 513), and is to > claim that something having the character described exists in the universe > which the sheet represents (Ms Am 806*). Not so easy is the meaning of the > other name, which is that "being involves necessarily the truth of the > description" (Ms 513). > > > Roberts did not attempt any further unpacking of these somewhat cryptic > remarks from three different manuscripts (Ms Am 806* = R 1589), all of > which are undated in the Robin catalog, but I will take a stab at it. To > provide context, here are longer excerpts from the two that mention > Entitative Graphs. > > CSP: Two efficient systems of logical graphs are known to me. They are > intimately allied. One of these I slightly sketched in *The Monist*, > Vol. VII. pp. 168-186 (Jan. 1897.) I call it the system of *Entitative > Graphs*, because its fundamental symbol expresses an entitative > relation. The other is the system herein described. I call it the system > of *Existential Graphs*, because its fundamental symbol expresses the > relation of existence. I speak of existence as a relation, because it > consists in the occurrence of a nature among a collection of individual > objects of experience,--not necessarily all actually experienced, but all > destined to be experienced, could the experience be rounded out to > completion. Any entitative graph may be converted into the equivalent > existential graph by, first, enclosing each spot separately and secondly > enclosing the whole graph. (R 485:1) > > CSP: I will first explain the graphical method. This method has two > varieties which I call Entitative Graphs and Existential Graphs. In the > Monist for January 1897 I have given a very slight and imperfect sketch of > the system of entitative graphs. I will here explain the existential > graphs which are less philosophical but are much easier to use. > In order to draw such a graph, the first step is to assign some sheet of > paper or enclosure upon a sheet, marked out by a bounding line, to > represent so much as we know or recollect of the universe. > > If on that sheet or in that enclosure we draw a picture, or write a > general description, or a letter which is an abbreviation for a general > description, the effect is to be understood and agreed upon as being that > we *assert* that to something in the universe that picture or description > applies. We aver that such a thing *exists*. Hence, I call this the > system of *existential* graphs. (On the entitative system the meaning > is, that being involves necessarily the truth of the description.) (R > 573:17-18) > > > The "fundamental symbol" in both systems is *juxtaposition*, which by > convention asserts *conjunction *in Existential Graphs vs. *disjunction *in > Entitative Graphs. In other words, when multiple propositions appear > unenclosed on a sheet, the claim in Existential Graphs is that *all *of > them are true, whereas the claim in Entitative Graphs is that *exactly > one* of them is true. Hence the relation represented by a pair of > Existential Graph-instances on the same sheet is that of *coexistence*, > while the relation represented by a pair of Entitative Graph-instances on > the same sheet is that of *conditional necessity*--if this, then not the > other, and vice-versa. That is consistent with what Peirce wrote in yet > another manuscript. > > CSP: There is more to be said about the Line of Identity, after the third > indispensible peculiar sign of the Syntax of Existential Graphs has been > considered. > This third is one that shall deny a Graph-instance, or scribed assertion. > For without that we could not, in Existential Graphs, express any > proposition [of] that form which is, *par excellence*, Critical; namely, > the conditional form, “If Antecedent then Consequent.["] No more could we > in Entitative Graphs (whose developement starts from the conditional form) > express a proposition of the particular form with which the development of > Existential Graphs begins. (R 670:11-12[10-11]; 1911 June 9-10). > > > Existential Graphs start with *copulative *propositions, and require Cuts > or (more iconically) shading to express *conditional *propositions; > conversely, *Entitative *Graphs start with *conditional *propositions, > and require Cuts to express *copulative *propositions. According to EP > 2:544n22 (1906), "The Being of a Form consists in the truth of a > conditional proposition"--i.e., "that being involves necessarily the truth > of the description"--and "The Form is in the Object, *entitatively *we > may say, meaning that that conditional relation ... is literally true of > the Object." According to CP 4.648 (1908), two classes are > *entitatively *diverse when they correspond to different essential > characters--different Forms, different conditional propositions--even if > they happen to include exactly the same singulars as their members, and are > thus existentially the same. > > Regards, > > Jon S. >
----------------------------- 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 .
