John S., List: JFS: Unless anyone can find later evidence that Peirce switched back to 'tone', I would consider 'mark' to be his final choice.
It might depend on exactly which date in late December 1908 we assign to EP 2:488-489, where Peirce used "Mark" twice. The preceding *written *date is the 25th (EP 2:484), just two days after his *very first* comment that he was *considering *"Mark" as a replacement for "Tone" (EP 2:480). The next written date is the 28th (EP 2:490). Is there any *conclusive *basis for thinking that the intervening text was *not *all written during the same day? I just discovered that in the Logic Notebook (R 339), there is an entry explicitly dated "1908 Dec. 27" that begins, "Let the first of a triad of numbers be 1 for a Tone, 2 for a Token, 3 for a Type." Since EP 2:488-489 comes *before *the page dated the 28th, the *latest *that it could have been written is *also *the 27th; and again, the *only *previous date in that manuscript itself was the 25th, two days *earlier*. Does this count as "later evidence that Peirce switched back to 'tone'"? https://rs.cms.hu-berlin.de/peircearchive/pages/preview.php?ref=13405 Rather than "Mark" being "his final choice," it seems much more likely to me that during those several days, Peirce was merely *experimenting *with "Mark" as a *possible *substitute for "Tone." His reversion to "Tone" in this private context suggests that he had by no means made up his mind that "Mark" was *definitively *preferable. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 10:22 PM, John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary F and Jon AS, > > Thanks for the comments. They're consistent with what I said > in my previous note. > > Gary > >> the earliest text I’ve found where Peirce uses the term “token”: >> > > CSP, late 1904 (EP2:326) > >> including under the term “sign” every picture, diagram, natural cry, >> pointing finger, wink, knot in one’s handkerchief, memory, dream, >> fancy, concept, indication, token, symptom, letter, numeral, word, >> sentence, chapter, book, library, and in short whatever, be it in >> the physical universe, be it in the world of thought, that, whether >> embodying an idea of any kind... >> > > In this quotation, Peirce is using the word 'token' as an example > on the same level as picture, diagram, natural cry... > > That confirms my claim that in the earlier quotation (EP 2:303) > he had not yet chosen the word 'token' as a technical term in > his system. The quotation from 1906 (CP 4.537) is the most > widely quoted source for the triad Tone/Token/Type. > > In any case, these examples show why we need complete, searchable > transcriptions of all of Peirce's MSS organized in chronological > order. But given the current sources, we can say > > 1. The 1904 quotations are from an early stage of Peirce's semiotic, > and they should not be considered definitive. The sentence > "A sign is not a real thing" from 1904 is not a reliable basis > for drawing firm conclusions about Peirce's complete system. > > 2. By 1906, he had developed his triad of tone/token/type. It > would be interesting to find any MSS that showed how, when, > and why he first chose those words. > > 3. Also in 1906, his research on modal logic led him to write > about the three "universes" of possibility, actuality, and > "the necessitated". > > 4. By combining modal logic with his system of signs, he coined > the triad Potisign/Actisign/Famisign. But in 1908, he said > that he preferred his earlier triad of more common words, > Tone/Token/Type. But he had some doubts about 'Tone', as > he said on 23 Dec 1908. See the attached EP2_480.jpg. > > 5. A few days later, he decided that 'Mark' was preferable > to 'Tone'. > > Jon > >> I believe that Lady Welby's reply to Peirce's letter of December 23, >> 1908 asking her about Tone vs. Mark was the one dated January 21, >> 1909 (SS 86ff). Consequently, it came several weeks after he wrote >> the other drafts of that letter. >> > > Yes, but note that Lady W's reason was the same example that Peirce > gave in 1906 (CP 4.537): > > Jon > >> if I remember right... she found Tone preferable because a tone >> of voice is a paradigmatic example. >> > > If Peirce was not satisfied with the word 'tone', the fact that > Lady W repeated his own example would not be convincing. > > Furthermore, 'mark' is a common English word that can be used > for marks in any of the senses (as Peirce called them, Optical, > Tactile, and Acoustic). But 'tone' is limited to Acoustic. > > Unless anyone can find later evidence that Peirce switched back > to 'tone', I would consider 'mark' to be his final choice. > > Jon > >> My suggestion is that for the sake of greater clarity, we should >> more carefully draw an explicit distinction between Signs as Types >> and their Replicas as Tokens, as well as the significant characters >> of the latter as Tones. >> > > I agree with everything up to the final word in that sentence. > > When I discuss or lecture about Peirce's triads, the word 'mark' > rolls off my tongue very smoothly, and people understand what I'm > trying to say. But the word 'tone' suggests a sound. It doesn't > generalize to other sensory modes. > > John Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 10:22 PM, John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary F and Jon AS, > > Thanks for the comments. They're consistent with what I said > in my previous note. > > Gary > >> the earliest text I’ve found where Peirce uses the term “token”: >> > > CSP, late 1904 (EP2:326) > >> including under the term “sign” every picture, diagram, natural cry, >> pointing finger, wink, knot in one’s handkerchief, memory, dream, >> fancy, concept, indication, token, symptom, letter, numeral, word, >> sentence, chapter, book, library, and in short whatever, be it in >> the physical universe, be it in the world of thought, that, whether >> embodying an idea of any kind... >> > > In this quotation, Peirce is using the word 'token' as an example > on the same level as picture, diagram, natural cry... > > That confirms my claim that in the earlier quotation (EP 2:303) > he had not yet chosen the word 'token' as a technical term in > his system. The quotation from 1906 (CP 4.537) is the most > widely quoted source for the triad Tone/Token/Type. > > In any case, these examples show why we need complete, searchable > transcriptions of all of Peirce's MSS organized in chronological > order. But given the current sources, we can say > > 1. The 1904 quotations are from an early stage of Peirce's semiotic, > and they should not be considered definitive. The sentence > "A sign is not a real thing" from 1904 is not a reliable basis > for drawing firm conclusions about Peirce's complete system. > > 2. By 1906, he had developed his triad of tone/token/type. It > would be interesting to find any MSS that showed how, when, > and why he first chose those words. > > 3. Also in 1906, his research on modal logic led him to write > about the three "universes" of possibility, actuality, and > "the necessitated". > > 4. By combining modal logic with his system of signs, he coined > the triad Potisign/Actisign/Famisign. But in 1908, he said > that he preferred his earlier triad of more common words, > Tone/Token/Type. But he had some doubts about 'Tone', as > he said on 23 Dec 1908. See the attached EP2_480.jpg. > > 5. A few days later, he decided that 'Mark' was preferable > to 'Tone'. > > Jon > >> I believe that Lady Welby's reply to Peirce's letter of December 23, >> 1908 asking her about Tone vs. Mark was the one dated January 21, >> 1909 (SS 86ff). Consequently, it came several weeks after he wrote >> the other drafts of that letter. >> > > Yes, but note that Lady W's reason was the same example that Peirce > gave in 1906 (CP 4.537): > > Jon > >> if I remember right... she found Tone preferable because a tone >> of voice is a paradigmatic example. >> > > If Peirce was not satisfied with the word 'tone', the fact that > Lady W repeated his own example would not be convincing. > > Furthermore, 'mark' is a common English word that can be used > for marks in any of the senses (as Peirce called them, Optical, > Tactile, and Acoustic). But 'tone' is limited to Acoustic. > > Unless anyone can find later evidence that Peirce switched back > to 'tone', I would consider 'mark' to be his final choice. > > Jon > >> My suggestion is that for the sake of greater clarity, we should >> more carefully draw an explicit distinction between Signs as Types >> and their Replicas as Tokens, as well as the significant characters >> of the latter as Tones. >> > > I agree with everything up to the final word in that sentence. > > When I discuss or lecture about Peirce's triads, the word 'mark' > rolls off my tongue very smoothly, and people understand what I'm > trying to say. But the word 'tone' suggests a sound. It doesn't > generalize to other sensory modes. > > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
