John, List: JFS: I noticed that Tony also adopted Peirce's final choice of 'mark' instead of 'tone'.
Again, going by the manuscript dates, Peirce's *final *choice was "tone" (R 339, 27 Dec 1908, https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:15255301$636i), not "mark" (CP 8.363-364, EP 2:488, 1908 Dec 25)--especially since the latter passage includes the word "might" and a parenthetical question mark, clearly indicating that "mark" was tentative rather than definitive. JFS: The fact that Welby preferred 'tone' is irrelevant, because she admitted that she did not understand Peirce's discussion, and her reason for preferring 'tone' has nothing to do with Peirce's system As quoted, Lady Welby does not say that she does not *understand *Peirce's "exposition of the 'possible' Sign"--on the contrary, she calls it "profoundly interesting"--only that she is "not equal to the effort of discussing it beyond saying that I should prefer *tone *to *mark*"; and again, her stated rationale for this preference is strikingly similar to Peirce's stated rationale for coining "tone" in the first place (CP 4.537, 1906). Besides ... JFS: That is the primary reason why he [Peirce] found Lady Welby's correspondence so important: She had a solid intuitive way of explaining principles that he tended to explain in ways that were more abstract and difficult to understand. Her influence enabled him to find simpler and more convincing explanations for his abstract ideas. ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2024-02/msg00096.html) Why think that "tone" vs. "mark" was an exception to this, such that her "homely" opinion about it did not sway him--especially since he was still vacillating between these two options, and specifically *asked *her to help him choose one? Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 1:08 PM John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > Edwina, Tony, Jon, List, > > I'd like to emphasize the first word of the subject line: Evolution. I > believe that is the best single word to describe Peirce's developments in > from 1903 to 1906 to 1908 to 1911 to his last long letter of 1913, in which > he highlighted the features he considered important. I'd also emphasize > Tony's point that too many Peirce scholars stopped at the issues, > terminology, and notations of 1903. That was an important beginning, but > the evolution in the following decade made fundamental changes. > > One important source of evidence is Peirce's choice of terminology. He > coined and adopted a wide range of terms, some of which he retained to the > end. But there are others that he stopped using and replaced with new > words. The points where he changed terms also involve critical > innovations. If he never again uses the old terms, that is an important > indication that he began a new way of thinking (paradigm). For example, > the words 'cut' and 'scroll' were banished in June 1911. > > There are multiple places where he made a major shift in terminology, and > every one of them shows a significant innovation in his system. The shift > from phenomenology to phaneroscopy is a permanent shift, and I believe that > it indicates a shift from an abstract Kantian style to the more concrete > examples that Lady Welby used. Another shift from the word-based > terminology, such as dicisign, to terms that include diagrams and images, > such as semes and phemes, is significant. Since semes include hypericons, > he never again needed that word. He also used the term "phemic sheet" as > replacement for 'sheet of assertion'. > > I noticed that Tony also adopted Peirce's final choice of 'mark' instead > of 'tone'. The fact that Welby preferred 'tone' is irrelevant, because she > admitted that she did not understand Peirce's discussion, and her reason > for preferring 'tone' has nothing to do with Peirce's system: "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). > > There's more to say about these issues, and I'll send another note when I > have the time. > > John > > PS: The initials JS are ambiguous. It's better to write JAS or JFS. > > ------------------------------ > *From*: "Edwina Taborsky" <edwina.tabor...@gmail.com> > *Subject*: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Evolution of Peirce's theoretical foundation > from 1903 to the end > > This is a discussion we’ve had with JAS before - and I agree with Dr. > Jappy [TJ]. . > > I agree with his view of semiosis as ’thought in action’ . My own view of > Peircean semiosis is that it outlines an active, adaptive, evolving process > of mind-as-matter formation; ie, an agapastic process. > > This would require that the three interpretants function as capable of > this generative, creative agapastic evolution - and this means that the > Immediate Interpretant, which is internal to the sign-vehicle operates as > the most immediate and ambiguously open interpretant form…. Followed by the > Dynamic Interpretant as a more specific and discrete result…and sometimes, > not always..by the Final Interpretant, which is a communal not individual > result. > > And, any of these Interpretants can be in any of the categorical modes. > > The way that JAS has set up the three Interpretants, seems to me to set up > an priori deterministic, necessitarian process, which is obviously closed [ > by the Final Interpretant’s privileged first step role]…and to me, this is > the opposite of that open, adaptive Peircean semeiosis. > > And as TJ points out - it doesn’t make sense that the Dynamic Interpretant > follows the Final…unless, in my view, that DI is merely a determined clone > of the authoritarian FI. > > Edwina >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
