Helmut, List:
HR: somewhere, I forgot where, I have read, that Existential Graphs are
Entitative Graphs turned inside out.
Peirce himself is the one who said that existential graphs "are merely
entitative graphs turned inside out" (R 280:21; c. 1905). There was a
thread on this same topic last summer, and as I noted back then, he
provided the following simple instructions.
CSP: Any entitative graph may be converted into the equivalent existential
graph [or vice-versa] by, first, enclosing each spot separately and
secondly enclosing the whole graph. (R 485:1)
The "fundamental symbol" in both systems is *juxtaposition*, which by
convention asserts *conjunction *in existential graphs vs. *inclusive
disjunction *(or *alternation*) 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 (a *copulative *proposition),
whereas the claim in entitative graphs is that *at least one* of them is
true (a *hypothetical *proposition). 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
not one, then the other.
Cuts indicate negation in both systems, and are necessary in order to
express hypothetical propositions in existential graphs and copulative
propositions in entitative graphs. However, the scroll in existential
graphs properly emphasizes that sequence is a more basic concept than
negation, as Peirce discusses at some length in "The Bed-Rock Beneath
Pragmaticism" (R 300; 1908); a cut is really a scroll with an inner close
that is blackened and then reduced to infinitesimal size (CP 4.454-456;
1903 and CP 4.564n; c. 1906). Finally, a line of identity denotes an
existentially quantified subject in existential graphs ("something") and a
universally quantified subject in entitative graphs ("anything").
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:22 AM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote:
> Supplement: With alternation of the backround of Venn diagrams in the case
> of Entitative Graphs / Laws of Form I meant, that this alternation takes
> place between graphs with no variable written into the unmarked space. That
> would be: (C) : Black background. (B(C)): White background. (A(B(C))):
> Black background. With EGs, I guess you never write a variable into the
> blank sheet, and in this case the background always is black.
> List,
> somewhere, I forgot where, I have read, that Existential Graphs are
> Entitative Graphs turned inside out. In the attachment I have tried to see
> whether this is so or not, by visualizing some graphs with Venn diagrams. I
> have found that for two variables in cuts inside each other (page 1 of the
> attachment), but not for three of them (page 2).
>
> It is also said (Wikipedia), that Entitative and Existential Graphs are
> dual with each other. I have not checked that yet. I first thought I had,
> thinking that dual Venn-Diagrams are like one being a negative photo-copy
> of the other. But that is not so. I dont know, whether duality is visible
> at all by comparing Venn-Diagrams. Duality means, that between two compared
> truth-tables "true" and "false" outcome values are replaced with each other.
>
> Another thing is, that, while this is not the case with EGs, in Entitative
> Graphs the background of the Venn-Diagram alternates between black and
> white with additional cuts inside each other.
>
> Entitative Graphs are isomorphic with Laws of Form, so this alternating
> background should not be, I guess, as in Laws of Form, it should be
> "unmarked space", isnt it? So nothing should happen with it, should it?
>
> But maybe, I have made mistakes? I was assuming, that a cut means "not" to
> its inside, and that elements besides each other are connected with "or" in
> Entitative Graphs, but with "and" in EGs.
>
> Best regards,
> 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 .
