42

φαν 2

ought to reveal, then, whatever common nature,
the signification of all thoughts must necessarily possess. You “catch on,”
I presume; — you apprehend in what way the system of Existential Graphs is to throw a light
upon the truth of Pragmaticism. Namely, it will show whether the
common nature which [????] belongs to all significations of concepts be or be not that ilk which Pragmaticism consists in supposing it to be.

I do not [pretend?] that the system is indispensible to this purpose;
since I myself had become well acquainted, in outline, at least, with the substance of its teachings. I only
mean that it immensely facilitates the learning of a difficult
lesson by rendering literally visible and putting before one's very eyes the operation of
thinking in action[?]. That it really does so becomes plain as soon as we stop to reflect a little upon the fact that
thinking always takes the form of dialogue, a dialogue between different phases of the ego, and that, being a dialogue, it is
essentially an affair composed of signs, as its matter, just as a game of chess has the chessmen as its matter.
Not that the particular signs employed
are themselves the thinking! Oh, no; no whit more than the