John, List: In the first passage that you quoted from R L376, I agree that Peirce is primarily condemning cuts, not tinctures. However, he is also condemning his *entire *55-page description of EGs in "Prolegomena to an Apology for Pragmaticism"--that is the total length of the article as originally published in *The Monist*, which is where he *introduces* the tinctures. Moreover, he explicitly bemoans "my nonsensical 'tinctures' and heraldry" two years later, in a letter addressed to F. A. Woods (R L477, 1913 Nov 8).
I will not further belabor the points that I have already made at length about the "many papers." Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 4:37 PM John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > I just wanted to clarify some issues that may be unclear in what Peirce > wrote in L376: "in the Monist of Oct. 1906... I made an attempt to make > the syntax cover Modals; but it has not satisfied me. The description was, > on the whole, as bad as it well could be, in great contrast to the one Dr. > Carus rejected. For although the system itself is marked by extreme > simplicity, the description fills 55 pages, and defines over a hundred > technical terms applying to it. The necessity for these was chiefly due to > the lines called “cuts” which simply appear in the present description as > the boundaries of shadings, or shaded parts of the sheet”. > > Many people interpreted this text as implying that Peirce was condemning > the tinctures. But as he said explicitly, it was "chiefly due to the > lines called cuts”, which in 1906 were defined as cuts through the paper > from the recto side to the verso side. The last mention of recto/verso was > in R669 (May 1911). From R670 (June 1911) to the last long letter in 1913, > negative areas were marked by shading, not by cuts. From L231 (June 1911) > to the end, Peirce also avoided the word 'cut'. > > In R670, he also mentioned tinctures as an option: “The nature of the > universe or universes of discourse (for several may be referred to in a > single assertion) in the rather unusual cases in which such precision is > required, is denoted either by using modifications of the heraldic > tinctures, marked in something like the usual manner in pale ink upon the > surface, or by scribing the graphs in colored inks”. > > I'm not discussing these issues as a criticism of anybody. I'm just > clarifying several points: (1) A notation for distinguishing "the universe > or universes of discourse" is important. (2) Tinctures, by themselves, are > not a bad way to express the distinction, but they could not be used in > print in the early 20th C. (3) But methods for distinguishing the UoD are > necessary in any text that happens to mention two or more. (4) This issue > is important for any discussion about L376, because Peirce explicitly > mentioned the division of the phemic sheet into multiple papers, which > might express different opinions by an utterer and an interpreter. (5) In > R670 above and in L376 below, the utterer and interpreter may refer to > different UoDs and discuss entities in them. Those discussions, when > expressed in EGs, would involve lines of identity (or quantified variables) > that refer to universes and to entities in them that may be abstract, > imaginary, possible, or impossible. Note that they may also discuss > "special understandings". An understanding is another* ens rations*, as > Peirce would say. > > From L376; "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 sometimes 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”. > > John >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
