John, List: FYI, I removed Dr. Jappy from the cc: line because he has told me in the past that he greatly values his privacy and thus prefers not to be included in any List discussions.
JFS: This is an unpublished article by Tony Jappy. The title is different, but the abstract exactly matches "From Phenomenology to Ontology in Peirce's Typologies" as published in *Semiotica *in 2019 (https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2018-0080). Regarding the content, as I have said before, I strongly disagree with equating "the Destinate Interpretant" to the immediate interpretant and "the Explicit Interpretant" to the final interpretant (SS84, EP 2:481, 1908 Dec 23), for at least four reasons. - The terms themselves clearly imply the opposite, namely, destinate=final/normal ("effect that would be produced on the mind by the Sign after sufficient development of thought," CP 8.343, EP 2:482, 1908 Dec 24-28) and explicit=immediate ("the Interpretant represented or signified in the Sign," ibid). - The context of the destinate/effective/explicit passage is *logical *determination for sign classification, not *causal *nor *temporal *determination within the process of semiosis; hence, the genuine correlate (If) determines the degenerate correlate (Id), which determines the doubly degenerate correlate (Ii). - The ten sign classes that result from applying the rule of determination to these three trichotomies are much more plausible when the order is (If, Id, Ii) than when it is (Ii, Id, If), especially when accounting for the possibility of *mis*interpretations. - The S-If trichotomy unambiguously comes *before *the S-Id trichotomy (CP 8.338, SS 34-35, 1904 Oct 12), so it makes sense for the If trichotomy likewise to come *before *the Id trichotomy. I can elaborate on any or all of these if anyone is interested. As for the inserted comments ... JFS: Note that “Mark Token Type” is Peirce's final choice of labels for that trichotomy. In that draft letter to Lady Welby, Peirce states, "But I dare say some of my former names are better than those I now use. I formerly called a *Potisign *a *Tinge *or *Tone*, an *Actisign *a *Token*, a *Famisign *a *Type *... I think *Potisign Actisign Famisign* might be called *Mark Token Type (?)* ..." (CP 8.363-364, EP 2:488, 1908 Dec 25). The word "might" and the parenthetical question mark indicate that his choice of "mark" is *not *final. In fact, he reverts to "Tone" in a Logic Notebook entry dated two days later (27 Dec 1908, https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:15255301$636i). Moreover, two days earlier, Peirce writes, "For a 'possible' Sign I have no better designation than a *Tone*, though I am considering replacing this by 'Mark.' Can you suggest a really good name?" (SS 83, 1908 Dec 23). Lady Welby replies a few weeks later, "Your exposition of the 'possible' Sign is profoundly interesting; but I am not equal to the effort of discussing it beyond saying that I should prefer *tone* to *mark* for the homely reason that we often have occasion to say 'I do not object to his words, but to his *tone*'" (SS 91, 1909 Jan 21). I agree with her, especially since Peirce himself gives essentially the same rationale for "tone" when he introduces it--"An indefinite significant character such as a tone of voice can neither be called a Type nor a Token. I propose to call such a Sign a *Tone*" (CP 4.537, 1906). Besides, "mark" already had a well-established and quite different definition in logic, which Peirce presents in his entry for it in Baldwin's *Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology* (https://gnusystems.ca/BaldwinPeirce.htm#Mark); and as discussed on the List recently, "markedness" is now an unrelated technical term in linguistics. JFS: In computer science and applications, the Lewis-style of modal logic has been useless in practical computations. Again, "useless" strikes me as an overstatement, and even if accurate, it does not entail that modern formal systems of modal logic will *never *turn out to be useful in these or any other applications. More to the point, such an assessment is *utterly irrelevant* for ascertaining what *Peirce *had in mind when writing R L376, including his statement, "I shall now have to add a *Delta *part [to Existential Graphs] in order to deal with modals." A straightforward reading of that text itself is that he simply needs a new notation to replace the unsatisfactory (broken) cuts of 1903 and nonsensical tinctures of 1906 for representing and reasoning about propositions involving possibility and necessity. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 2:46 PM John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > To provide some background and alternative interpretations of Peirce's > theories during his last decade, the attached article by Tony Jappy > discusses issues from a different perspective than the recent discussions > about Delta graphs. > > The article by Jappy is a 14-page summary of issues that he discussed in > much more detail in a book he wrote in 2017. I inserted commentary at > various points marked by "JFS:". But I did not add, delete, or change any > of Jappy's text. My comments do not discuss any issues about Delta graphs, > but they provide some background information that may be helpful for > interpreting L376. > > John >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
