List,
I am reluctant to write something here, because I have not really worked my way into the topic, so, if my idea is dilettantic, please just dont answer. My idea would be, that perhaps entitative graphs are the inversion of existential graphs and vice versa, like, turned inside out. I thought that, because in entitative graphs the blank sheet is false, while in existential graphs it is the universe of discourse. Being inside out, inside a cut of an entitative graph, unenclosed propositions would be different universes for outside of the cut, and it is in any thinkable common sense so, that there can only be one universe, so the fact that exactly one of the propositions are true, would make sense.
Best,
Helmut
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
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 .
