Re: [PEIRCE-L] Delta Existential Graphs (was The Proper Way in Logic)

[John F Sowa]

Jon,

The entire letter L376 is about Delta graphs and applications of Delta graphs.  
Since Peirce began the letter to Risteen shortly after his visit, he was 
assuming that Risteen knew a great deal about the material they had discussed.  
Therefore, he plunged into examples without much of an intro.

As Peirce wrote, the phemic sheet of a Delta graph contains multiple "papers", 
each of which represents one possibility specified by "postulates"  that govern 
the remaining content of the sheet.  There are many ways of partitioning a 
sheet of paper to distinguish the postulates from the content they govern.  The 
excerpt from R514 is one method, and it happens to fill an entire sheet of 
paper.  He may have thought of some other notation for partitioning the paper, 
but the logical result would be equivalent.

There is much more to say, and I'll send the full preview later this week.

Meanwhile, there are some questions to ponder:  Why did Juliette scrub and 
polish the floor in December?  Spring cleaning is rarely done in December.  Why 
was there some paper on the floor?  Why did Peirce slip n it?  Didn't he see 
it? Why was his accident so serious?  If he had been walking in a straight 
line, he might have fallen on his rear.  That might have been painful, but it 
wouldn't cause a serious injury that took 6 months to heal.   Such a serious 
accident might have occurred if Peirce had been walking fast while turning or 
twisting.  But why would he be doing that?

Possible answer:  Charles had asked Juliette to wash the floor because he 
wanted to build a diagram with multiple papers.  He was laying out a diagram of 
papers with a large example of what he was writing about.  As he turned to lay 
our another layer, he turned and slipped.

John


From: "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
Sent: 2/20/24 2:00 PM
To: Peirce-L 
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Delta Existential Graphs (was The Proper Way in Logic)

John, List:

Here is an exact quotation of what Peirce actually says in R L376 (letter to 
Risteen) about the phemic sheet consisting of multiple "papers."

CSP: I provide my system with a phemic sheet, which is a surface upon which the 
utterer and interpreter will, by force of a voluntary and actually contracted 
habit, recognize that whatever is scribed upon it and is interpretable as an 
assertion is to be recognized as an assertion, although it may refer to a mere 
idea as its subject. If “snows” is scribed upon the Phemic Sheet, it asserts 
that in the universe to which a special understanding between utterer and 
interpreter has made the special part of the phemic sheet on which it is 
scribed to relate, it sometime does snow. For they two may conceive that the 
“phemic sheet” embraces many papers, so that one part of it is before the 
common attention at one time and another part at another, and that actual 
conventions between them equivalent to scribed graphs make some of those pieces 
relate to one subject and part to another.

There is no mention of Delta, nor anything that would "deal with modals," which 
again is Peirce's only stated purpose for adding a Delta part to EGs. Instead, 
the different papers correspond to different subjects that attract "the common 
attention" of the utterer and interpreter at different times--i.e., different 
universes of discourse; not different times, aspects, or modalities of the same 
universe of discourse.

There is also nothing about the new "red pencil" operation that Peirce 
describes in R 514 (as quoted below), and based on his specific example in that 
text--postulates in geometry--it likewise does not "deal with modals." Instead, 
it treats the edges of the sheet and the red line drawn a short distance inside 
them as two cuts, the latter nested within the former, such that what is being 
represented overall is a conditional--if the propositions in the margin (outer 
close) are true, then the graphs within the red line (inner close) are also 
true. In other words, the universe of discourse is made more explicit instead 
of being entirely taken for granted, and it might be strictly 
hypothetical--"merely asserted to be possible."

In summary, it remains unclear to me what the content of your new article has 
to do with Delta graphs. How would the use of multiple "papers" and/or the "red 
pencil" operation facilitate implementing formal systems of modal logic with 
EGs? Which specific one, "invented in 2006," do you have in mind?

Regards,

Jon

On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 10:30 PM John F Sowa  wrote:
Jon,

That's true:

JAS> I am admittedly curious about the content of your new article. As you 
know, there is only one place in Peirce's entire vast corpus of writings where 
he mentions Delta.

But note the following excerpt from R514, which also contains a rough draft of 
the EGs in L231:

"Since my paper of 1906, I have improved the [EG] system slightly (at least), 
and the manner of exposition of it greatly, by first stating the force 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Language as Semiosis

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Michael, List:

Thanks for sharing the article. Although it seems incidental to your
overall project, footnote 2 caught my eye.

MS: The use by Peirce of the form "rationalized" (rather than "rational")
as a modifier of "variety" in the quotation above should be taken
advisedly. This use of the participial form, with its adversion to process,
should serve as a caveat that when Peirce talks about "object*ive*
idealism," what he ought to have said is "object*ified* idealism." This
slight grammatical change puts the meaning of the phrase (and the
doctrine!) in a whole new--and completely acceptable--light.


Could you please elaborate on this? What specific difference are you
emphasizing here between objectIVE idealism and objectIFIED idealism? Since
you describe the latter as "completely acceptable," what do you find
UNacceptable about the former as Peirce's own term for his metaphysical
doctrine in 1891?

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 2:35 AM Michael Shapiro 
wrote:

> John Sowa et al.,
>
>
>
> In case y'all would like to read something of what I've had to say more
> recently (as in my last book, *The Logic of Language*, 2022), attached
> herewith is an article.
>
> M.
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Delta Existential Graphs (was The Proper Way in Logic)

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

John, List:

Here is an exact quotation of what Peirce actually says in R L376 (letter
to Risteen) about the phemic sheet consisting of multiple "papers."

CSP: I provide my system with a *phemic sheet*, which is a surface upon
which the utterer and interpreter will, by force of a voluntary and
actually contracted habit, recognize that whatever is scribed upon it and
is interpretable as an assertion is to be recognized as an assertion,
although it may refer to a mere idea as its subject. If “snows” is scribed
upon the Phemic Sheet, it asserts that in the universe to which a special
understanding between utterer and interpreter has made the special part of
the phemic sheet on which it is scribed to relate, it *sometime *does snow.
For they two may conceive that the “phemic sheet” embraces many papers, so
that one part of it is before the common attention at one time and another
part at another, and that actual conventions between them equivalent to
scribed graphs make some of those pieces relate to one subject and part to
another.


There is no mention of Delta, nor anything that would "deal with modals,"
which again is Peirce's only stated purpose for adding a Delta part to EGs.
Instead, the different papers correspond to different *subjects* that
attract "the common attention" of the utterer and interpreter at different
times--i.e., different universes of discourse; not different times,
aspects, or modalities of the *same *universe of discourse.

There is also nothing about the new "red pencil" operation that Peirce
describes in R 514 (as quoted below), and based on his specific example in
that text--postulates in geometry--it likewise does not "deal with modals."
Instead, it treats the edges of the sheet and the red line drawn a short
distance inside them as two cuts, the latter nested within the former, such
that what is being represented overall is a *conditional*--if the
propositions in the margin (outer close) are true, then the graphs within
the red line (inner close) are also true. In other words, the universe of
discourse is made more explicit instead of being entirely taken for
granted, and it might be strictly hypothetical--"merely asserted to be
possible."

In summary, it remains unclear to me what the content of your new article
has to do with Delta graphs. How would the use of multiple "papers" and/or
the "red pencil" operation facilitate implementing formal systems of modal
logic with EGs? Which specific one, "invented in 2006," do you have in mind?


Regards,

Jon

On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 10:30 PM John F Sowa  wrote:

> Jon,
>
> That's true:
>
> JAS> I am admittedly curious about the content of your new article. As you
> know, there is only one place in Peirce's entire vast corpus of writings
> where he mentions Delta.
>
> But note the following excerpt from R514, which also contains a rough
> draft of the EGs in L231:
>
> "Since my paper of 1906, I have improved the [EG] system slightly (at
> least), and the manner of exposition of it greatly, by first stating the
> force of the different signs without going into their deeper significance
> in the
> Since my paper of 1906, I have improved the [EG] system slightly (at
> least), and the manner of exposition of it greatly, by first stating the
> force of the different signs without going into their deeper significance
> in the least...
>
> One of my possibly slight improvements, is that I begin by drawing
> (preferably with a red pencil), a line all round my sheet at a little
> distance from the edge; and in the margin outside the red line, whatever is
> scribed is merely asserted to be possible. Thus, if the subject were
> geometry, I could write in that margin the postulates, and any pertinent
> problems stated in the form of postulates such as, that "if on a plane,
> there be circle with a ray cutting it, and two be marked [end of R514]
>
> That operation is the way L376 represents multiple parts of the phemic
> sheet.  And it is a way of saying the conditions for the nested graph to be
> possible.  That doesn't say much more.  But that operation when combined
> with a notation for first-order logic is a method for representing modality
> in various logics in the late 20th and early 21st C.
>
> There are also other hints that suggest ways of extending FOL.  They don't
> prove that Peirce intended exactly the same kinds of applications.  But it
> shows that his ways of thinking could lead in promising directions.
> Following is the abstract of the article I'm writing.
>
> Abstract.  In December 1911, Peirce wrote an intriguing claim about
> existential graphs:  “I shall now have to add a Delta part in order to deal
> with modals.” Although his unfinished draft does not specify the details,
> it explains how an utterer and an interpreter may use Delta graphs in an
> investigation. Further hints may be found in several manuscripts he wrote
> in the previous six months. As another hint, the intended recipient of the
> letter was Allan Risteen.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Proper Way in Logic (was Peirce's Ongoing Semiotic Project)

[Edwina Taborsky]

I did not say that the Hopi way of taking about time is objectionable. I said 
that I consider it incorrect to consider that because the Hopi view time in a 
particular manner and have words for this view, that this does not mean that 
they would not understand the SAE way of thinking about time. That is - I 
reject the dominance of sociolinguistics or the dominance of 
words-over-the-mind. 

Edwina

> On Feb 19, 2024, at 10:58 PM, John F Sowa  wrote:
> 
> Jon, Edwina, List,
> 
> Peirce's writings and Jon's article about "temporal synechism" do not 
> conflict with the following sentence:
> 
> JFS: In any case, there is no conflict between Peirce's categories and 
> different theories about time.
> 
> There is a major difference between Newtonian time, time in Einstein's 
> special relativity, time in general relativity, and time in many variations 
> that physicists have proposed in the past century.   Nobody know what 
> theories may be developed in the future.   But it's doubtful that any of them 
> will make any noticeable difference in the way that different cultures talk 
> about time.
> 
> Edwina said that she considered the Hopi way of talking about time as 
> objectionable.  I admit that it's different from SAE, which is closer to my 
> way of thinking.  But I believe that there is a one-to-one mapping between 
> Hopi times and SAE times -- at least at a level that is humanly perceptible 
> without special instruments. 
> 
> And I can't see any conflict with anything Peirce wrote.  Those examples just 
> show that different people think in different ways.  I can't see any reason 
> for objecting.
> 
> John  
> 
>  
> 
> From: "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
> 
> John, List:
> 
> JFS: In any case, there is no conflict between Peirce's categories and 
> different theories about time.
> 
> I wrote a lengthy paper on this subject, "Temporal Synechism: A Peircean 
> Philosophy of Time" (https://rdcu.be/b9xVm).
> 
> JFS: Since every hypothesis is stated as a proposition, asking the question 
> "Why?" about any 3ns would lead to a proposition. That proposition is the 
> reason that explains why the first and second are related.
> 
> This is getting closer to the phaneroscopic essence of 3ns as mediation, and 
> it is fully consistent with one of Peirce's own examples that I quoted 
> previously.
> 
> CSP: Nature herself often supplies the place of the intention of a rational 
> agent in making a 3ns genuine and not merely accidental; as when a spark, as 
> third, falling into a barrel of gunpowder, as first, causes an explosion, as 
> second. But how does nature do this? By virtue of an intelligible law 
> according to which she acts. (CP 1.366, EP 1:255, 1886-7)
> 
> Why did the gunpowder explode? Because a spark ignited it. Indeed, the third 
> (spark) explains why the first (gunpowder) and second (explosion) are 
> related, reflecting the intelligibility of that relation. Nevertheless, this 
> answer does not require a verb that names a triadic relation; and although it 
> provides a reason for what happened, it does not identify a rational agent's 
> goal, purpose, or intention behind it. After all, the explosion might have 
> been entirely accidental, not the result of any goal/purpose/intention at all.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
>  
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt 
>  / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt 
> 
> 
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
> https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
> https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the 
> links!
> ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in 
> the body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
> ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
> co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.