List As an addendum - I wonder if this tortured focus on ‘ which term is the correct one’ has shades of nominalism in it…ie, that focus on the particular, the individual, [ ie the exact term] and an difference to ‘what is real’. [ ie the meaning and function].
Edwina > On Apr 12, 2024, at 9:32 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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" <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>> 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 >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> . >>> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> 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 >> [email protected] . >> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] >> 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 [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 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.
