Shape

38 Introduction: Tell Me All About It
also have this spatial relation with respect to d, p, and q
The arrangements are indistinguishable. Peirce would probably agree that my four figures
are just like his two. Still, let’s look at some possible consequences—well, at least
one. What happens to reading? Is everything from beb to qeq in the following table
the same?
beb deb peb qeb
bed ded ped qed
bep dep pep qep
beq deq peq qeq
No one thinks so. We’re not trained to. There’s the word bed to tell b and d apart, and
p and q when bed is upside down. And surely, the alphabet doesn’t bother Peirce. He’s
not worried about single letters, but about multiple objects and distinguishing arrangements
that are the same. That makes the difference. But when are single letters not
multiple strokes? What do arrangements of objects look like? Why aren’t they shapes
with parts? Let’s see what I can say about Peirce’s figures when I test them in various
ways.
In figure 1, there are eleven horizontals and eleven verticals, while its twin figure
2 contains fifteen horizontals and fifteen verticals. Four squares arranged in the following
way
on four adjacent points in figure 1 don’t look the same as four squares—or is it five?—
arranged in like fashion