List, I contribute to the debate with this note that I posted on Academia.edu a few years ago ... at my peril ... I have not yet looked at tone/mark, but the same methodology should make it possible to conclude that each of the six types of token involves a tone/mark of a particular kind. https://www.academia.edu/61335079/Note_on_Signs_Types_and_Tokens Regards, Robert Marty Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty *https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ <https://martyrobert.academia.edu/>*
Le ven. 12 avr. 2024 à 05:04, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> a écrit : > John, List: > > JFS: As words, there is no logical difference between the words 'mark' and > 'tone' as a term for a possible mark. > > > Again, the key difference is between Peirce's *definition *of "mark" in > Baldwin's dictionary and his *definition *of "tone"--as well as "tuone," > "tinge," and "potisign"--in various other places. > > JFS: But some words, such as potisign are rather unusual and may even be > considered ugly. They are certainly not memorable. > > > Peirce famously *preferred *an ugly word for his version of pragmatism so > that it would be "safe from kidnappers." If being memorable is a criterion, > then "tone" is superior to "mark" due to its alliteration with "token" and > "type"; as Gary said, someone suggested to him "that the three all starting > with the letter 't' perhaps constituted a kind of mnemonic device." > > JFS: Jon made the claim that Peirce used the word 'tone' more often, > mainly in obscure MSS. That is not a ringing endorsement. > > > It is not a mere claim that I made, it is an indisputable fact--"tone" is > the *only *word that Peirce used in multiple places and at multiple times > between 1906 and 1908 for the possible counterpart of existent "token" and > necessitant "type." It is also the *only *one that was published during > his lifetime (CP 4.537, 1906)--the others appear in Logic Notebook entries > and the December 1908 letters to Lady Welby, with "mark" and "potisign" > found solely in the latter, although *she *subsequently endorsed "tone." > As someone once said, "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). > > JFS: That is not a scientific survey, but I could not find a single > non-Peircean scholar who would even consider the word 'tone'. If anybody > else has any further evidence (or just a personal preference) one way or > the other, please let us know. > > > Gary already provided anecdotal evidence to the contrary and expressed his > personal preference for "tone." As always, my own priority is accurately > understanding, helpfully explaining, and fruitfully building on *Peirce's > *views by carefully studying and adhering to *his *words. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 6:10 PM John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > >> Gary, Jon, List, >> >> My note crossed in the mail with Gary's. I responded to the previous >> notes by Jon and Gary (q.v.). >> >> My conclusion: As words, there is no logical difference between the >> words 'mark' and 'tone' as a term for a possible mark. In fact, any word >> pulled out of thin air could be chosen as a term for a possible mark. But >> some words, such as potisign are rather unusual and may even be considered >> ugly. They are certainly not memorable. >> >> Peirce at one point suggested the word 'mark' as a word for 'possible >> mark'. That shows he was not fully convinced that 'tone' was the best word >> for the future. Jon made the claim that Peirce used the word 'tone' more >> often, mainly in obscure MSS. That is not a ringing endorsement. >> >> But we must remember that Tony Jappy also chose the word 'mark' for the >> triad (mark token type). And he has devoted years of research to the >> issues. As I pointed out, authorities are not infallible, but they are >> more likely to be authorities than T. C. Mits (The Common Man in the >> street). >> >> And I myself have been cited as an authority for quite a few issues in >> logic, including Peirce's logic. See https://jfsowa.com/pubs/ for >> publications. There are even more lecture slides. (Copies upon request.) >> >> But the ultimate judges for the vocabulary are the speakers of the >> future. The overwhelming majority of knowledgeable logicians, linguists, >> and philosophers who know the pair (token type) but not the first term, >> find mark far more congenial and memorable than tone. I discovered that >> point while talking to them. That is not a scientific survey, but I could >> not find a single non-Peircean scholar who would even consider the word >> 'tone'. >> >> If anybody else has any further evidence (or just a personal preference) >> one way or the other, please let us know. >> >> John >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From*: "Gary Richmond" <gary.richm...@gmail.com> >> 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 >> > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > 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.
