Helmut, Jon, List, That is the reason why the word 'Mark' is the perfect choice: you won't be wrong whether or not you know the details of Peirce's semeiotic.
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. The fact that the academic meaning and the common meaning would both use a word with the spelling M-A-R-K makes it the ideal choice for everybody: academics who insist on being absolutely faithful to Peirce's technical sense and everybody else who doesn't know Peirce's technical sense. In fact, one reason why Peirce chose the word tone is that it would be correct for that subset of marks that have the sound of a tone. He also considered 'tuone' for a larger subset of marks that happened to have the sound of tones or tunes. And he considered the word 'tinge' for that subset of marks that could be tinges. But the word 'mark' covers all those sounds as well as arbitrary sights and feelings. That means that Peirce himself preferred words whose dictionary sense was close to or even identical to the academic sense that he intended. Since the overwhelming majority of professional philosophers know very little about the fine points of Peirce's semeiotic, it's a good idea to choose terms that they are capable of remembering and using correctly. John ---------------------------------------- From: "Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> 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
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
