Robert- I agree with you about examining how the ‘relations of embodiment’ of the triadic sign actually function - but this recent debate - and it’s a debate not a discussion’[ i.e., it’s focused on Who Wins ]- rejects a more basic requirement of analysis; namely - what is the operative function of the triad which is using those terms; it is instead focused solely on ‘which term to use’ - and the focus is on ‘purity vs functionality’. .
Therefore , as you point out, we get a focus on ‘which word did Peirce prefer’ with the result as you point out that “imaginary distinctions are often drawn between beliefs which differ only in their mode of expression - the wrangling which ensues is real enough, however” 5.398…But, equally according to Peirce - these are ‘false distinctions’…. Is it so impossible to state that one prefers the use of x-term [ which Peirce used] to Y-term [ which Peirce used] because, according to your analysis, it better explains the operative function of what is semiotically taking place - without the heavens opening up with a downpour of rejection??? I recall the equal horror of some members of this list when I use the terms ‘input’ and ‘output’ to refer to the incoming data from the Dynamic object and the resultant output Interpretant meaning of the semiosic mediation….[Peirce never used those words!! You’re a pseudo-Peircean; you are…” . But without such modernization and explanation of the function of semiosis, and the insistence by ’The Purists’ on using only Peircean terms - and above all, his ‘favourite terms’ - , we will never be able to move the real analytic power of Peircean semiosis into the modern world. And that - - is where I believe the focus should be. Edwina > On Apr 12, 2024, at 6:29 AM, robert marty <robert.mart...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty> > https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ > > > > Le ven. 12 avr. 2024 à 05:04, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com > <mailto: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 >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> >> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 6:10 PM John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net >> <mailto: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 >>> <mailto: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 <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at >> https://www.cspeirce.com <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 <mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . >> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu >> <mailto: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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
