Gary, Jon, List To develop a complete and consistent set of terminology, some decisions have to be made. I have stated the reasons why I believe that the trichotomy (potisign, actisighn, famisign) is based on Peirce's best and most detailed reasoning. I also agree with him that (mark token type) are simpler English words that would be better for widespread use.
The fact that the word 'mark' is used in a way that is consistent with Peirce's definition in Baldwin's dictionary is another important point in its favor. The words 'tone', 'tinge', or 'tuone' are too narrow. They might be useful for sounds, but they are not as general as 'mark' for images in other sensory modalities. I have also lectured and written articles for a larger audience of professionals who are familiar with the terms 'token' and 'type', but have never used, read, or heard the word 'tone' for the first member. The most likely reason is that nobody except Peirce scholars would ever use the word 'tone'. But when I use the word 'mark', they find it quite congenial. That is why I adopted it in my writings on this topic. Furthermore, Tony Jappy has been studying and analyzing the evolution of Peirce's writings during the last decade of his life. I find his analyses quite compatible with my own studies. Therefore, I am pleased to note that he has reached a similar conclusion about adopting 'mark' rather than 'tone'. I have also read Jon's recent note on this subject. There is nothing new. I am not asking him to do anything he doesn't want to do. All I'm saying is that there is no reason to continue discussing this issue. John ---------------------------------------- From: "Gary Richmond" <gary.richm...@gmail.com> John, Jon, List, JFS: 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.) GR: It appears to me that if Jon has been 'jumping through hoops' to argue his position, then you have been doing no less hoop jumping. But more to the point, it is your mere opinion that 'tone' is Peirce's "rather poor choice of terminology' whereas, as I see it, it has been argued rather convincingly by Jon that there is a strong case for preferring 'tone' to 'mark'. Since you have settled on 'mark' in your own work, I can see why you might want to argue for it exclusively. But -- and as I've followed this discussion closely -- in my estimation, Jon's argument for 'tone' is stronger than yours for 'mark'. And I know I am not alone in that opinion. This is brought home especially when you throw up your arms and argue from authority, principally, your own. But not exclusively your own: JFS: "I find Tony's [Jappy's] analyses convincing and compatible with my own studies and with other studies of Peirce's last decade." GR: Far different from this approach, Peirce made a whole hearted effort to solicit criticism of his own views. Even more than that, he called for scientists and other scholars to try to refute his work where possible in the interest of correcting possible errors. That seems to me to be almost a corollary of the method of science as opposed to the other methods of inquiry. With the exception of well-prepared scientists offering testable hypotheses, inquiry is, for Peirce, essentially a communal affair, and the methods of tenacity (mere stubborn clinging to a position), the a Priori method (pretty much a 'taste' or a 'feel' that some way of looking at some matter is 'right' ), and that of authority are assiduously avoided in scientific inquiry. Of course I needn't remind you, or any logician, that the appeal to authority is a well-known logical fallacy. JFS: There is nothing further to discuss about this topic. GR: Perhaps not; we shall see. But in any event, it is not for you to determine. After all, this is Peirce-L, not Sowa-L, nor Schmidt-L nor, for that matter, Richmond-L, but Peirce-L. Still, I must agree with you that the arguments for 'mark' and 'tone' have been fairly fully laid out and List members can decide for themselves which argumentation has been strongest, most convincing. This is to say that they needn't take your, or Jon's, or my word for it. JFS: You [Jon] said that you had read Tony's writings. i strongly urge you to study them. GR: Your now repeated request that JAS read and study Jappy's works (which he clearly does) appears to me as condescending as your appeal to authority is unscientific from the standpoint of Peirce's four methods of fixing belief. It is my opinion as List moderator that in light of Peirce's ethics of inquiry, and along with Joe Ransdell's notes on the Peirce-L page of Arisbe meant to apply facets of that ethics to conduct in this forum, that reflecting on those ought give you -- and everyone -- pause as to they consider what conduct is and is not appropriate here. As did Joe, I have always wanted Peirce-L to be essentially self-moderated. But in the past few years I have seen that there are participants who rather flaunt their independence from such ethical and collegial practices as Ransdell outlined. It will no longer be tolerated, and those who have previously been warned their anti-collegial conduct on the List jeopardizes their continuation on Peirce-L. In short, they will be removed without further on or off List discussion. Gary Richmond (writing as forum moderator)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
