Helmut, List: HR: I haven´t thoroughly followed the discussion about "mark", because I felt, that in this case the academic meaning (possibly a possible) differs too much from from the common meaning, in which a mark is an actual material sign, intended to be recognizable by anybody else.
Indeed, this common meaning of "mark" is one reason why I am concerned about using it as a substitute for tone/tuone/tinge/potisign as defined by Peirce--while such a possible sign must be *embodied *in an existent token in order to *act *as a sign, it is never *itself *"an actual material sign." HR: Now I want to answer to JAS´ quote: The subsequent quote is actually from JFS, not me (JAS), although I agree with the gist of it in accordance with synechism. HR: Taxonomy is a kind of classification, and classification is "either-or". Classification is not *always *"either-or"--for example, Peirce's 1903 trichotomy for classifying a sign according to its relation with its object is icon/index/symbol, yet this is a matter of degree instead of a sharp distinction. A *pure *icon would signify an interpretant without denoting any object, and a *pure *index would denote an object without signifying any interpretant, yet every sign by definition has *both *an object and an interpretant. That is why a symbol is a *genuine *sign, an index is a *degenerate *sign, and an icon is a *doubly degenerate* sign (see EP 2:306-307, c. 1901). HR: BTW, determination, I´d say, is "if-then", from the "then" to the "if". Determination in sign classification can be *described *using if-then, but not rigidly so. If the correlate or relation for one trichotomy is a necessitant, then the correlate or relation for the next trichotomy can be in any of the three universes; if it is an existent, then the next can be either existent or possible, but not necessitant; and if it is a possible, the the next is also a possible. That is why, in Peirce's 1903 taxonomy, a symbol can be an argument, dicisign, or rheme; an index can be a dicisign or rheme; and an icon is always a rheme. HR: I added this, because I think, a certain kind of manifestation of the categories is composition (1ns), determination (2ns), and classification (3ns). Peirce explicitly associates composition with 3ns, not 1ns--"[A] triadic relationship cannot be built up from dyadic relationships. Whoever thinks it can be so composed has overlooked the fact that *composition *is itself a triadic relationship, between the two (or more) components and the composite whole" (CP 6.321, c. 1907). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Apr 14, 2024 at 11:18 AM Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > > List, > > I haven´t thoroughly followed the discussion about "mark", because I felt, > that in this case the academic meaning (possibly a possible) differs too > much from from the common meaning, in which a mark is an actual material > sign, intended to be recognizable by anybody else. > Now I want to answer to JAS´ quote: > > "But the overwhelming number of words in any natural language have no > precise boundaries because there are no natural boundaries in the world > itself. Any attempt to legislate precise boundaries would be > counter-productive because it would prevent the words from growing and > shifting their meaning with changes over time. Just consider the words > 'car' and 'plow' in Peirce's day and today. The things they apply to are > so radically different that any precise definition in 1900 would be > obsolete today." > > Ok, there are not always clear boundaries in time, but nevertheless there > are clear boundaries (in the world itself) in properties, space and > function at a certain moment, if this certain moment is in the present or, > as a matter of retrospection, in the past. > > In this thread, taxonomy too is a topic. Taxonomy is a kind of > classification, and classification is "either-or". So, betweeen classes, > there are precise boundaries. Otherwise it would be "or", which as I think > is composition. BTW, determination, I´d say, is "if-then", from the "then" > to the "if". I added this, because I think, a certain kind of manifestation > of the categories is composition (1ns), determination (2ns), and > classification (3ns). > > Best regards > Helmut >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
