Robert, Jon, all, I didn't know what you meant by "singular token" before. You mean a typeless token. I hadn't been following the thread. Also, Robert, I can't get the peirce-l server to re-send your post to me, which i had not received in the first place. So I include it below in case anybody else hasn't received it. Removing unnecessary HTML markup seemed to help last time - not a single bounce of my previous post.
Peirce called himself a Scholastic Realist of an extreme stripe. I don't know why he would bar an undiscovered type, an unknown type, if it were a type about which any investigator _would_ agree upon sufficient investigation. Unknown does not equate to unknowable. I also worry about the idea of sinsigns that are not tokens. My system-building instinct would be then seek out qualisigns that are not tones, and legisigns that are not types, if there are any such. Best, Ben * *From*: robert marty <robert.marty98 AT gmail.com> * *To*: peirce-l AT list.iu.edu, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschmidt AT gmail.com> * *Subject*: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign Tokens and Sign Types (was Peirce's Categorial Involution, and Contemporary Peirce Scholarship) * *Date*: Thu, 13 Nov 2025 18:46:26 +0100 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon, List, JAS: "there are no singular tokens, i.e., there no singular sinsigns." JAS:"there are no singular tokens", YES! It's a tautology, since it's a token, it's a replica of a type. Do we agree on that after all ? JAS: "i.e., there no singular sinsigns" NO ! Peirce: CP 2.254: First: A Qualisign …is any quality … a quality can only denote *an* * Object* .. CP 2.255: Second: An Iconic Sinsign [*/e.g., /*an individual diagram]… it determine the idea of *an object* … CP 2.256: Third: A Rhematic Indexical Sinsign …it directs attention to *an Object* … CP 2.257: Fourth: A Dicent Sinsign … affords information concerning *its Objec*t … *The only information it can afford is of actual fact *… CP 2.265: In the course of the above descriptions of the classes, certain subdivisions of some of them have been directly or indirectly referred to. Namely, beside the *normal varieties of Sinsigns*, Indices, and Dicisigns, there are others which are *Replicas of Legisigns*, Symbols, and Arguments, *respectively.* RM: That is to say, among the *normal varieties* *of Sinsigns* there are *replicas* *of Legisigns*; among *the normal varieties* *of Indices* there are *replicas* *of Symbols*; among *the normal varieties of Dicisigns* there are *replicas of* *Arguments* … Conclusion:*the normal varieties of Sinsigns that are not replicas of Legisigns are singular signs that are not tokens.* *Example by Peirce*: by CP 2.255 an *individual diagram*, is an Iconic Sinsign and by CP 2.258, a diagram, *apart from its factual individuality* is any general law *or type* named Iconic Legisign … In other words, an individual diagram retains its singularity until an expert identifies it as a token of a type, which can take a very long time (this was the case for DNA). How many diagrams drawn by bricoleurs in their articles will retain this status forever ? Indeed: /It was necessary for me to determine what I should call *one science*. For this purpose I have united under one science studies such as the same man, in the present state of science, might very well pursue. I have been guided in determining this by noting how scientists associate themselves into societies, and what contributions are commonly admitted into one journal: being on my guard against the survival of traditions from bygone states of science. /(NEM IV: 15, 1902, List of Proposed Memoirs on Logic, N^o . 1. /On the Classification of the Theoretic Sciences of Research/) *QED* Do we agree on that after all ? Regards, Robert Marty fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty https://martyrobert.academia.edu/
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
