Supplement: One catchy example:
The Kurds claim their right for an own country, because they havent got one. The Turks deny them this right, because the Kurds hanent got one (an own country). Same premiss, two opposing conclusions. Reason: Kurds think in entitative graphs, Turks in existential graphs. Consequence: War.
Ok, this analysis is very, very boiled-down, I admit...
Jon, List,
and in Wikipedia they write, that entitative graphs are "dual" to alpha-existential graphs. I guess "dual", as a mathematical term, means either the same as inversion ("turned inside out"), or is something more general, of which this inversion is an example.
I recall, that a little time ago, somebody wrote about the advantage of thinking in graphs rather than in language. Now, at this point, I think, that it makes a big difference, whether somebody rather thinks in entitative/Laws-Of-Form-graphs, or in existential graphs:
Spencer-Brown wrote, that the first step is to draw a distinction. I guess, in LOF/EntG-logic, the active person (the drawer or reader of the graph) positions him/herself outside of the cut, in the unmarked space (LOF). In this case, s*he has a constructivist self-identification of being the creator of his/her own universe.
I EGs, I guess it is rather so, that the active person positions her/himself inside of a cut, which on one hand logically is the same, due to the inversion, but, as intuitive reading goes from the outside to the inside, the impression is, that the person is not the agent, but the patient, not the constructor of the distinction (the cut), and the world outside of the cut, but suffering from it.
These two ways of thinking in graphs show two different kinds of psycological, mental, and political ways of thinking, I guess. I suspect, that, though the choice between these two ways of thinking-in-graphs may well be caused by pure chance, like by what has happened in education, the consequences can be a choice of one or the other polarly opposing political opinions, even ideologies.
I would find this situation very sad, and would propose, that everybody should be coached to think in both kinds of graphs (e.g. in school). I really think, this could even prevent civil and other wars.
Best,
Helmut
Helmut, List:
As a matter of fact ...
CSP: The writer described a system of logical graphs, since named “Entitative Graphs”, in Vol. VIII of the Monist (pp. 163-188); but the ink was hardly dry on the sheets (or would hardly have been so in [the] fashion of printing of his youth) when he discovered the far preferable system, on the whole, of Existential Graphs, which are merely entitative graphs turned inside out ... (R 280:21; c. 1904-1905)
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 3:36 PM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote:
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
----------------------------- 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 .
