Jon, List, We acknowledge that Peirce introduced the trichotomy (Tone Token Type) in the Prolegomena article of 1906, and his choice of the name 'Tone' was based on one example, "a tone of voice". After two more years of intensive study, analysis, and writings, he presented a more precise specification of the trichotomy (Potisign, Actisign, and Famisign) in a letter to Welby (EP2, p.
"Thirdly, that which is stored away in one's Memory; Familiar, and as such, General. Consequently, Signs, in respect to their Modes of possible Presentation, are divisible (o) into: "A. Potisigns, or Objects which are Signs so far as they are merely possible, but felt to be positively possible; as for eample the seventh ray that passes through the three intersections of opposite sides of Pascal's hexagram.8 "B. Actisigns, or Objects which are Signs as Experienced hie et nunc; such as any single word in a single place in a single sentence of a single paragraph of a single page of a single copy of a Book. There may be repetition of the whole paragraph, this word included, in another place. But that other occurrence is not this word. The book may be printed in an edition of ten thousand; but THIS word is only in my copy." Peirce defined this trichotomy without making any reference to (Tone Token Type). We don't know what he was thinking when he specified it. But later (EP2, pp. 485-488) he continued to discuss Potisigns, Actisigns, and Famisigns without making any references to the signs he defined in 2006. He also discussed universes in considerable detail. That is a topic he began to discuss in the Prolegomena, where he introduced (Tone Token Type). But he is now introducing this new triad without making any reference to it. But he is discussing this new version in quite a bit of detail, and he is referring to universes repeatedly. Then on p. 488, he writes: "From the summer of 1905 to the same time in 1906,1 devoted much study to my ten trichotomies of signs.9 It is time I reverted to the subject, as I know I could now make it much clearer. 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 (?)... Then he continues: "I have now given as much time to this letter as I can afford and I cannot now reexamine the remaining Trichotomies, although I must do so as soon as possible. So I just give them as they stood two years and more ago. In particular, the relations I assumed between the different classes were the wildest guesses and cannot be altogether right I think... In short, Peirce himself called some of his earlier discussions of trichotomies "the wildest guesses". That should not encourage anyone to consider them as having any reliable status. The best definition of (Mark Token Type) should be considered the equivalent of (Potisign Actisign Famisign) with the definitions stated in EP pp. 485-488. For the definition of Mark, by itself, his definition in Baldwin's dictionary should be considered and compared to what he wrote about Potisign. I also strongly recommend the writings by Tony Jappy, since he has made far deeper and more extensive analysis of the "evolving" thoughts and writings by Peirce in the decade from 1903 to 1908. As you know, his existential graphs also evolved during that time, and they didn't reach their fully complete specification until the June 1911 for Alpha and Beta. For Gamma, the 1903 version was quickly cobbled together for the Lowell lectures. Peirce used metalanguage for specifying modality and a version of higher-order logic in 1903. But he made a major revolution for his Delta graphs of 1911. There is much more to say. John ---------------------------------------- From: "Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> Sent: 4/7/24 6:27 PM To: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Cc: Ahti Pietarinen <ahti.pietari...@gmail.com>, Francesco Bellucci <bellucci.france...@googlemail.com> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mark Token Type John, List: JFS: A tone or mark is not "opposed to a token". It is that part of an image that determines it as a token of some type. The image, the mark, and the token are the same physical "thing". They are not three separable things. Whatever these sentences are supposed to be describing, it is certainly not what Peirce ever defines as the first member of the trichotomy for sign classification "according to the Mode of Apprehension of the Sign itself" (CP 8.344, EP 2:482, 1908 Dec 24), the other two members of which are "token" and "type." A tone (or mark) is "an indefinite significant character" (CP 4.537, 1906)--it is not itself a physical thing, but it can be possessed by a token, which is a physical thing (or event) that exists (or occurs) at a single place and time (ibid). A type is "a definitely significant form" that can be embodied in any number of different tokens (ibid), each of which might also embody different tones/marks as indefinite characters. Consequently, two different tokens of the same type can possess different tones/marks, and two different tokens of two different types can possess the same tone/mark--there is no strict alignment between indefinite tones/marks and definite types. JFS: But Peirce explicitly defined 'mark' or 'tone' as a 'potisign' -- a sign of a possibility. To help avoid mistakes, I recommend providing exact quotations when attributing explicit definitions to Peirce. In this case, he never defines a tone/mark/potisign as a sign of a possibility, as if its (dynamical) object were a possibility. Instead, he defines it as a sign that is itself merely possible. "A Sign may itself have a 'possible' Mode of Being ... 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?" (EP 2:480, 1908 Dec 23). "Consequently, Signs, in respect to their Modes of possible Presentation, are divisible into: A. Potisigns, or Objects which are Signs so far as they are merely possible, but felt to be positively possible" (CP 8.347, EP 2:483, 1908 Dec 24). In short, a tone/mark is a possible sign, distinguished from a token as an existent sign and a type as a necessitant sign. Again, none of this is at all controversial among Peirce scholars. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Apr 7, 2024 at 1:47 PM John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: Jon, List, See the recent notes about the ZOOM talk on Friday. It is essential for Peirce scholars to bring his philosophy and its applications to the attention of philosopher, scientists, and engineers in the 21st century -- Peirce worked in all three professions. The word 'tone' is a special case that Peirce himself forgot when he coined the new term 'potisign'. He later recalled his definition for 'mark' in Baldwin's dictionary (consciously or not) when he suggested it as a replacement for 'tone'. I have lectured and adopted Peirce's logic and semeiotic for a broad modern audience, and I realize that 'mark' is far more natural, more understandable, and more memorable than 'tone' for any purpose other than a detailed textual criticism of the MS. As Peirce himself said, if nobody else adopted a word he coined, he was under no obligation to keep it. JFS: Every tone is a mark, which may also be a token of some type. JAS: A tone of voice is merely the example that Peirce gives in CP 4.537 (1906) to illustrate what he has in mind. His definition of a tone in that passage is "an indefinite significant character," as opposed to a token as a "Single event which happens once and whose identity is limited to that one happening or a Single object or thing which is in some single place at any one instant of time, such event or thing being significant only as occurring just when and where it does," and a type as "a definitely significant Form." No. A tone or mark is not "opposed to a token". It is that part of an image that determines it as a token of some type. The image, the mark, and the token are the same physical "thing". They are not three separable things.. Bur the word 'tone' is an poor choice, which caused the misunderstanding. Lady Welby assumed that the word 'tone' was an actisign that referred to an existing thing -- some feeling of the speaker. But Peirce explicitly defined 'mark' or 'tone' as a 'potisign' -- a sign of a possibility. As another example, consider the images on Mayan temples. For years, they were considered decorations or images of some significant things. But linguists discovered that they could be interpreted as a notation for Mayan words. By assuming that ancient Mayan was an earlier stage of modern spoken Mayan, linguists learned to read those "decorations" as a notation for the words of the Mayan language. The same images from one point of view are marks of tokens of decorations. From another point of view, they are marks of tokens of morphemes of the Mayan language. In textual criticism, Peirce's exact words in any MS must be recorded exactly. But in publications about Peirce's intentions, the terminology must be adapted to the way modern readers would interpret the words. Max Fisch, for example, realized that Peirce's decision to use the word 'logic' as an abbreviation for 'logic as semeiotic'. In his 1986 book, Fisch stated that he was using the word 'semeiotic' as the abbreviation for 'logic as semeiotic". Fisch is certainly a respectable authority on the subject, and I believe that we should follow his example in choosing which of Peirce's options to consider as a standard for the 21st C.. 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.
