Jon, List, I'm sorry, but I don't understand why you're jumping through all kinds of hoops to defend a rather poor choice of terminology that Peirce happened to mention just once. (Except for once more in the LNB.)
First, the terms potisign, actisign, and famisign are the kinds of words that Peirce frequently coined. The three pages of EP2 show a great deal of thought, which is much more than he wrote about that trichotomy in 1906. It's also very closely reasoned thought, which is consistent with many issues he had been discussing for years. Except for the fact that those words are rather ugly, they are the result of deep thinking. By contrast, the word 'tone' in 1906 sounds like a quick choice based on one rather rare kind of sign (a tone of voice). The word 'mark' is much more natural, more general, more consistent with his definition in Baldwin's dictionary, and much, much easier to explain to intelligent listeners and readers who are not Peirce scholars. (And I believe that those people are the most important audience for Peirce scholars to address.) Furthermore, Tony Jappy has been devoting years to his analysis of the evolution of Peirce's writings in his last decade. I have also been devoting a great deal of study to the evolution of other aspects, especially EGs during that decade. And I find Tony's analyses convincing and compatible with my own studies and with other studies of Peirce's last decade. There is nothing further to discuss about this topic. You said that you had read Tony's writings. i strongly urge you to study them. John ---------------------------------------- From: "Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> John, List: JFS: Peirce defined this trichotomy [potisign/actisign/famisign] without making any reference to (Tone Token Type). This is highly misleading--Peirce wrote EP 2:478-490 over three consecutive days (1908 Dec 23-25), and he did make reference to tone/token/type both before and after introducing potisign/actisign/famisign. CSP: 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? An Actual sign I call a Token; a Necessitant Sign a Type. (EP 2:480, 1908 Dec 23) CSP: 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 ... B. Actisigns, or Objects which are Signs as Experienced hic 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. ... C. Famisigns, familiar signs, which must be General, as General signs must be familiar or composed of Familiar signs. (EP 2:483, 1908 Dec 24) CSP: 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 (?) (EP 2:488, 1908 Dec 25) Peirce was dissatisfied with potisign/sinsign/actisign and was considering replacing "tone" with "mark," so he explicitly asked Lady Welby for her opinion, which she gave a few weeks later--"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). He tentatively replaced "potisign" with "mark," using the word "might" and a parenthetical question mark, but then wrote "tone" in his Logic Notebook two days later (https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:15255301$636i, 1908 Dec 27)--his last known mention of this trichotomy. Again, some might hold the opinion that "mark" is a better choice than "tone" for the first member of the trichotomy for sign classification whose other two members are "token" and "type," but no one can accurately claim that "mark" was Peirce's final and definitive choice. CSP: In particular, the relations I assumed between the different classes were the wildest guesses and cannot be altogether right I think. (EP 2:489, 1908 Dec 25) JFS: In short, Peirce himself called some of his earlier discussions of trichotomies "the wildest guesses". What Peirce here calls "the wildest guesses" are not the trichotomies themselves but "the relations I assumed between the different classes." In other words, he never presents all ten trichotomies of the 1906-1908 taxonomies in their proper logical order of determination for working out the 66 sign classes. Instead, he repeatedly presents them in phaneroscopic order. JFS: 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 agree, and sure enough, there is nothing in Peirce's definition of "mark" for Baldwin's Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology about it being a sign whose mode of being, apprehension, or presentation is "merely possible" as distinguished from an existent token and a necessitant type. On the contrary ... CSP: Mark. To say that a term or thing has a mark is to say that of whatever it can be predicated something else (the mark) can be predicated; and to say that two terms or things have the same mark is simply to say that one term (the mark) can be predicated of whatever either of these terms or things can be predicated. The word translates the Latin nota. It has many practical synonyms such as quality, mode, attribute, predicate, character, property, determination, consequent, sign. Most of these words are sometimes used in special senses; and even when they are used in a general sense, they may suggest somewhat different points of view from mark. (https://gnusystems.ca/BaldwinPeirce.htm#Mark) By this definition, a mark is a term that can be predicated of things of which other terms are predicated. For example, "scarlet" and "crimson" are different terms that both have the term "red" as a mark--anything that is scarlet or crimson is also red. However, the term "red" is obviously not a tone/potisign, it is always a token/actisign of a type/famisign. On the other hand, the color red--as well as a specific shade like scarlet or crimson--can be a tone/potisign when and where it serves as "an indefinite significant character." 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 9:11 PM John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: 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
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
