List, While at first I was sceptical of Jon's keeping this discussion going as it has continued for some time now, yet this most recent post of his reminded me that the principal issue being considered has *not *been resolved unless you want to accept John's word that it has been and, by the way, completely along the lines of *his* analysis. In other words, the 'tone' v. 'mark' question has been settled *because* John says it has and, so, there's no need for further discussion.
I have followed this exchange very closely and find that Jon's argumentation is bolstered by textual and other support. For example, contra John, he has repeatedly demonstrated -- again, with more than sufficient textual support - that any use of 'mark' consistent with Peirce's Baldwin Dictionary definition is contrary to Peirce's discussion of 'tone' (and related terms, such as. 'potisign'). For 'mark' is viewed by Peirce as a kind of *term* and, so, decidedly *not *a *possible sign*. Indeed, the very image that comes to my mind for 'mark' is always an *existential* one, say a mark on a blackboard, or a beauty mark. Conversely, as Jon has repeatedly shown, all of Peirce's definitions of a *possible sign* include the idea that its being is a significant "quality of feeling," a "Vague Quality," a sign that while "merely possible, [is] felt to be positively possible." John says that when he uses 'mark' as having Peirce's meaning of a "Vague Quality" that his listeners, typically *not* schooled in Peircean thought, "find it quite congenial" and, so he uses it in all his talks and written work. I can only say that that has not been my experience over the years. For example, earlier this year I gave an invited talk at a session of the George Santayana Society at the Eastern APA on the trichotomic structure of Peirce's Classification of the Sciences where I found that in discussing tone, token, type that my interlocutors -- almost none of whom were familiar with Peirce's semeiotic -- found 'tone' to be most genial and, indeed, one suggested that the three all starting with the letter 't' perhaps constituted a kind of mnemonic device. Well, be that as it may, that notion is certainly trivial (pun intended). Again, it bears repeating that John's remark that, because Tony Jappy used the term 'mark' rather than 'tone', he has adopted it is nothing but the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority. I have had any number of discussions with Peirceans over the past several years, none of whom have faulted my use of 'tone' for that "merely possible" sign. Mark my words! Furthermore, I have found Jon more than willing to learn from his disagreements with others on the List. For example, in several of his papers he has expressed appreciation for the engagement with* several* Peirce-L members with whom he has 'contended' on the List, including John. And despite John's claim that having read Jon's post prior to this most recent one and finding "nothing new," Jon has clearly shown that he in fact did provide, and "for the first time," a list of all the passages where Peirce uses not only 'tone', but its variants (such as 'tuone' and 'potisgin'). John, on the other hand, has kept repeating his opinions with little textual support. So I ask each member of this forum who has an interest in this topic to honestly weigh the arguments presented by Jon and John and determine for themself who has made the stronger case, John for 'mark' or Jon for 'tone'. Perhaps then we can put the matter to rest (at least for a time). Best, Gary Richmond On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 2:55 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > John, List: > > JFS: 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. > > > As I have noted twice before, with exact quotations as explicit support, > any use of "mark" that is consistent with Peirce's definition in Baldwin's > dictionary (https://gnusystems.ca/BaldwinPeirce.htm#Mark) is > *inconsistent *with his various explanations of what he means by "tone," > "tuone," "tinge," and "potisign." Again, a mark is a certain kind of > term--"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"--which entails that it is a > *necessitant *type embodied in *existent *tokens, not a *possible *sign. > On the other hand, Peirce defines the latter as "what has all its being > whether it exists or not" (R 339:275r, 1906 Mar 31), "a quality of feeling > which is significant" (R 339:276r, 1906 Apr 2), "a character in its nature > incapable of exact identification" (ibid), "an indefinite significant > character" (CP 4.537, 1906), a "Vague Quality" (R 339:285r, 1906 Aug 31), > and "Objects which are Signs so far as they are merely possible, but felt > to be positively possible" (CP 8.363, EP 2:488, 1908 Dec 25). > > JFS: But when I use the word 'mark', they find it quite congenial. That is > why I adopted it in my writings on this topic. > > > The problem with this alleged congeniality is that anyone unfamiliar with > Peirce's speculative grammar almost certainly *misunderstands *the word > "mark" when it is used for a *possible *sign, the counterpart of an *existent > *"token" and a *necessitant *"type." For example, as a candidate to > replace "tone," "tuone," "tinge," and "potisign," it is definitely *not *"that > part of an image that determines it as a token of some type" ( > https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2024-04/msg00035.html). Again, > among other differences, a type "is absolutely identical in all its *Instances > *or embodiments, while a Tuone cannot have any identity, it has only > similarity" (R 339:277r, 1906 Apr 2). > > JFS: 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'. > > > Tony Jappy *uses *"mark" rather than "tone," but does he ever give a > *reason *for doing so? Maybe it is just for convenience when quoting the *only > *sentence where Peirce himself employs it without qualification--"Consequently > an Abstractive must be a Mark, while a Type must be a Collective, which > shows how I conceived Abstractives and Collectives" (CP 8.367, EP 2:489, > 1908 Dec 25). Either way, as Gary already observed, appeal to authority > is a logical *fallacy*, and we also need to be mindful of the danger of > confirmation bias. Over the years, I have benefited greatly from my > *disagreements > *with others on the List because they have prompted me to go back to *Peirce's > *relevant writings and then either bolster my arguments (as in this case) > or revise my position accordingly, although I never find bald assertions to > be persuasive. > > JFS: I have also read Jon's recent note on this subject. There is nothing > new. > > > On the contrary, in my last post ( > https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2024-04/msg00049.html), I > listed for the first time *all *the different passages where Peirce uses > "tone" as well as "tuone," "tinge," "potisign," and even "idea"; and I > provided a long excerpt from his Logic Notebook that has not previously > appeared in this or any other recent List thread, where he describes what > he has in mind (using "tuone") and carefully distinguishes it from a type. > By contrast, much of the post below is repetition of previously expressed > opinions, with no exact quotations from Peirce to support them. > > JFS: All I'm saying is that there is no reason to continue discussing this > issue. > > > Then why keep posting about it? > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 9:02 PM John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > >> 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
