Jon, List.
JAS: Is every sign token an instance of a sign type, as I have been maintaining for quite some time now? No. To be simple about it. I have a mathematical/logical method to prove that such cannot be true along Pavlovian lines and arbitrariness as well as what is "necessary" within symbolic and "other" meaning-making systems. It is habit, almost entirely, if not entirely, which makes such a thing as you have proposed: token/type distinctions. I don't see the necessity to it sans certain categorical symbolic distinctions which are not necessary but are very common and habitual. Best, Jack ________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 6:08 PM To: Peirce-L <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Categorial Involution, and Contemporary Peirce Scholarship List: Getting back to the thread topic, last Friday I posted several questions in the hope of prompting some further discussion (https://list.iu.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2025-10/msg00145.html). Since no one else has taken up any of them yet, I am doing so myself, starting with the last two. JAS: Is every sign token an instance of a sign type, as I have been maintaining for quite some time now? Obviously, my current answer is "yes"; but as I have said before, all that it would take to justify answering "no" is a single counterexample--something that is incontrovertibly a sign token but cannot be understood as an instance of a sign type. Can anybody provide one? JAS: If so, then how do we account for the fact that every type is a collective, such that its dynamical object is general, while a token can be a concretive, such that its dynamical object is an individual? Here, I propose to apply Peirce's late topical conception of continuity to both a type as a general sign and its dynamical object, which is likewise general--each is an inexhaustible continuum (3ns) of indefinite possibilities (1ns), some of which are actualized (2ns). After all, "every general concept is, in reference to its individuals, strictly a continuum"; and thus, "in the light of the logic of relatives, the general is seen to be precisely the continuous" (NEM 4:358, 1893). "Continuity, as generality, is inherent in potentiality, which is essentially general" (CP 6.204, 1898). Accordingly, in my view, a type as a general sign is a continuum of potential tokens, some of which are actualized as individual signs; its dynamical object is also general as a continuum of potential individuals, some of which are actualized; and those existents can then serve as the dynamical objects of tokens of that type. Hence, a token that is an instance of a type can denote either the same general object that the type denotes, such that it is a collective like the type itself, or an individual object that is an instantiation of that general, such that it is instead a concretive. For example, as a type, the word "triangle" refers to "a triangle in general, which is neither equilateral, isosceles, nor scalene" (CP 5.181, EP 2:227, 1903); but as a token, it can also refer to an individual triangle, which must be exactly one of these three kinds. I suggest that this is the sense in which a type involves and governs tokens as its instances, and in which a general (3ns) involves and governs individuals as its possible (1ns) and actual (2ns) instantiations--perhaps pointing toward the answer to one of my other questions. JAS: What exactly does it mean for 3ns to govern 1ns and 2ns? "That which is possible is in so far general and, as general, it ceases to be individual. Hence, ... the word 'potential' means indeterminate yet capable of determination in any special case" (CP 6.185, 1898). As I see it, in order to serve as an instance of a type, a token must be determined by that type (as the token's immediate object) to conform to that type (as "a definitely significant Form," CP 4.537, 1906), which is what enables the token to represent the type's dynamical object or any instantiation thereof; and in order to qualify as such an actual instantiation of a general object, an individual object must conform to one of its inexhaustibly many possible instantiations. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
