John S., List: JFS: I believe that the subject line blurs too many issues.
It is a direct quote from Peirce (EP 2:303; 1904), and the point of the thread is to explicate it. JFS: Since mark is his final choice, I'll use mark instead of tinge or tone. In the referenced passage, Peirce stated, "I dare say some of my former names are better than those I now use" (EP 2:488; 1908). In fact, less than two weeks earlier, he had asked Lady Welby specifically about Tone vs. Mark (SS 83; 1908); and if I remember right--I do not have a copy of her reply--she found Tone preferable because a tone of voice is a paradigmatic example. Peirce also used Tone in what I think is one of his clearest passages about this division of Signs (CP 4.537; 1906). JFS: General principle: In any occurrence of semiosis, there is always a perceptible mark that is interpreted by some mind or quasi-mind as a token of some type. This may be a case of hair-splitting on my part, but I would suggest instead that in any Instance of a Sign, the Tone is the character (or set of characters) by which the interpreting Quasi-mind recognizes the Sign-Replica to be an individual Token of the Type. Acquaintance with the system of Signs (Essential Information) is necessary and sufficient for this. It is analogous to the role of the Immediate Object as that by which the interpreting Quasi-mind identifies the Dynamic Object of the Sign, for which Collateral Experience (Experiential Information) is necessary and sufficient (cf. CP 8.179, EP 2:494; 1909). As a Possible, the Tone can only have an Immediate Interpretant--"its peculiar Interpretability before it gets any Interpreter." As an Existent, the Token is what produces the Dynamic Interpretant--"that which is experienced in each act of Interpretation." As a Necessitant, only the Type has a Final Interpretant--"the one Interpretative result to which every Interpreter is destined to come if the Sign is sufficiently considered," which corresponds to the correct Habit of Interpretation (Substantial Information). In other words, "The Immediate Interpretant is an abstraction, consisting in a Possibility. The Dynamical Interpretant is a single actual event. The Final Interpretant is that toward which the actual tends" (SS 111; 1909). JFS: In summary, semiosis turns real possibilities into real actualities. I agree, and would add that semiosis also governs Real actualities in accordance with Real regularities. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:15 AM, John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > I believe that the subject line blurs too many issues. > > In various writings over the years, Peirce wrote about > real possibilities. He also wrote about laws as real. > > In writing about modality, he distinguished three universes: > the possible, the actual, and the necessitated. Actual > existence is just one of the three ways of being real. > > He also distinguished logical possibility and necessity > from real possibility and necessity. A theory is logically > possible if it's consistent by itself. It's a real possibility > if it's also consistent with the laws of nature. > > Given the above, apply the principles to signs. For that, > consider Peirce's Letters to Lady Welby in 1908, in which > he wrote about signs and the three universes (EP 2:478-480). > > In EP 2:488, he wrote that the triad Potisign (possible sign) / > actisign (sign in act) / and famisign (familiar or general sign) > might be called (tinge or tone or mark) / token / type. Since > mark is his final choice, I'll use mark instead of tinge or tone. > > General principle: In any occurrence of semiosis, there is > always a perceptible mark that is interpreted by some mind or > quasi-mind as a token of some type. > > Prior to semiosis, the perceptible thing exists in actuality. > But it's only a possible mark. It doesn't become an actual mark > until it is sensed by some mind or quasi-mind. Then as soon as > it's recognized, the actual mark becomes an actual token of some type. > > In summary, semiosis turns real possibilities into real actualities. > > John
----------------------------- 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] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
