Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mark Token Type

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

John, List:

JFS: I don't understand why you're jumping through hoops to defend a rather
poor choice of terminology that Peirce happened to mention just once.
(Except for once more in the LNB.)


I am not the one who is jumping through hoops--the textual evidence plainly
*supports* my position. For example, it is blatantly false that Peirce
mentions "tone" just once or twice; on the contrary, he uses it as the
counterpart of "token" and "type" more often than any other candidate after
abandoning qualisign/sinsign/legisign (R 339:275r, 1906 Mar 31; CP 4.537,
1906; SS 83, EP 2:480, 1908 Dec 23; CP 8.363, EP 2:488, 1908 Dec 25; R
339:340, 1908 Dec 27). In one of the few exceptions, he instead uses
"tuone," which "is a blend of Tone and Tune" (R 339:276r, 1906 Apr 2); more
on that below. By contrast, the December 1908 letter to Lady Welby is the
*sole* place where "mark" and "potisign" appear as alternatives, and the
only other variants are "tinge" (R 339:285r, 1906 Aug 31) and "idea" (R
795, c. 1908).

JFS: The word 'mark' is much more natural, more general, more consistent
with his definition in Baldwin's dictionary, and much, much easier to
explain to intelligent listeners and readers who are not Peirce scholars.


Please review my last post, especially the exact quotations that I provided
(https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2024-04/msg00043.html). In
Baldwin's dictionary, Peirce explicitly defines a "mark" as a certain kind
of *term*, which is a symbol and thus a *necessitant* sign (type) that is
embodied in *existent* signs (tokens)--utterly inconsistent with his
various definitions of a *possible* sign, including the following lengthy
discussion of a tuone and how it differs from a type.

CSP: It means a quality of feeling which is significant, whether it be
simple, like a Tone or complex, like a Tune. But the latter is not *pure*
feeling. By a Token, I mean an existing thing or an historical event which
serves as a Sign. By a Type, I mean a general form which can be repeated
indefinitely, and is in all its repetitions one and the same Sign. Thus the
word *the* is a Type. It is likely to occur over a score of times on a page
of an English book; but it is only one word twenty times repeated. The
distinction between a Type and a Token is obvious. There may be some
confusion between the Tuone and the Type. They may, however, be
distinguished in various ways. In the first place, a Type is absolutely
identical in all its *Instances* or embodiments, while a Tuone cannot have
any identity, it has only similarity. Thus the sound of any word will be
slightly different every two times it is pronounced and in so far as it is
so, it is two Tuones. But any two vowels in so far as they are alike are
the same Tuone, in the only sense in which there can be any sameness to a
Tuone. Any thing then that could conceivably be made absolutely definite,
bearing in mind that no two things can be exactly alike in any quality
whatever, cannot be a Tuone. Another test is that Tuone though it may be
composed of many ingredients is, like a chemical compound of many elements,
perfectly homogeneous and structureless in effect; while a Type, though it
may be indecomposable, must be more or less complex in its relations. Tests
might be multiplied; yet after all, it will often require subtlety to
decide whether a given Sign is a Tuone or a Type. Take for example a given
melody, say "The Last Rose of Summer." Considered as to its structure it is
a Type; but considered as a whole in its esthetic effect which is not
composed of one part due to one note and another to another, it is a Tuone.
As ordinarily conceived it is a Tuone, slightly different however every
time it is sung, but from the point of view of counterpoint, it is
absolutely the same every time it is rendered with substantial correctness
(though it be a table out of tune and time) and so it is a Type. But any
one singing of it is neither Tuone nor Type but a Token. Notwithstanding
these difficulties in many cases there is no room for an instant’s
hesitation, and the distinction is not only useful but practically
indispensible. (R 339:276r-277r, 1906 Apr 2)


A type is a "definitely significant Form" (CP 4.537) such that it is
*identical*--one and the same sign--in all its embodied instances (tokens),
while a tuone is "an indefinite significant character" (ibid) such that it
can only exhibit *similarity* to other tuones. The *sound* of a word is a
tuone, but the spoken word *itself* is a token of a type.

JFS: There is nothing further to discuss about this topic.


In that case, please do not feel obligated to reply to this post.

JFS: You said that you had read Tony's writings. I strongly urge you to
study them.


I said that I have likewise read *and *carefully studied about a dozen
articles by Tony Jappy, as well as his 2017 book, *Peirce's Twenty-Eight
Sign Classes and the Philosophy of Representation* (

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mark Token Type

[Gary Richmond]

John, Jon, List,

JFS: I'm sorry, but I  don't understand why you're jumping through all
kinds of hoops to defend a rather poor choice of terminology that Peirce
happened to mention just once.  (Except for once more in the LNB.)
GR: It appears to me that *if* Jon has been 'jumping through hoops' to
argue his position, then you have been doing no less hoop jumping.

But more to the point, it is your mere opinion that 'tone' is Peirce's
"rather poor choice of terminology' whereas, as I see it, it has been
argued rather convincingly by Jon that there is a strong case for
preferring 'tone' to 'mark'. Since you have settled on 'mark' in your own
work, I can see why you might want to argue for it exclusively. But -- and
as I've followed this discussion closely -- in my estimation, Jon's
argument for 'tone' is stronger than yours for 'mark'. And I know I am not
alone in that opinion.

This is brought home especially when you throw up your arms and argue from
authority, principally, your own. But not exclusively your own:

JFS: "I find Tony's [Jappy's] analyses convincing and compatible with my
own studies and with other studies of Peirce's last decade."
GR: Far different from this approach, Peirce made a whole hearted effort to
solicit criticism of his own views. Even more than that, he called for
scientists and other scholars to try to *refute* his work where possible in
the interest of correcting possible errors. That seems to me to be almost a
corollary of the method of science as  opposed to the other methods of
inquiry. With the exception of well-prepared scientists offering testable
hypotheses, inquiry is, for Peirce, essentially a communal affair, and the
methods of tenacity (mere stubborn clinging to a position), the a Priori
method (pretty much a 'taste' or a 'feel' that some way of looking at some
matter is 'right' ), and that of authority are assiduously avoided in
scientific inquiry. Of course I needn't remind you, or any logician, that
the *appeal* to authority is a well-known logical fallacy.

JFS: There is nothing further to discuss about this topic.
GR: Perhaps not; we shall see. But in any event, it is not for you to
determine. After all, this is Peirce-L, not Sowa-L, nor Schmidt-L nor, for
that matter, Richmond-L, but Peirce-L.  Still, I must agree with you that
the arguments for 'mark' and 'tone' have been fairly fully laid out and
List members can decide for themselves which argumentation has been
strongest, most convincing. This is to say that they needn't take your, or
Jon's, or my word for it.

JFS: You [Jon] said that you had read Tony's writings.  i strongly urge you
to study them.
GR: Your now repeated request that JAS read and study Jappy's works (which
he clearly does) appears to me as condescending as your appeal to authority
is unscientific from the standpoint of Peirce's four methods of fixing
belief.

It is my opinion as List moderator that in light of Peirce's ethics of
inquiry, and along with Joe Ransdell's notes on the Peirce-L page of Arisbe
meant to apply facets of that ethics to conduct in this forum, that
reflecting on those ought give you -- and everyone -- pause as to they
consider what conduct is and is not appropriate here. As did Joe, I have
always wanted Peirce-L to be essentially self-moderated. But in the past
few years I have seen that there are participants who rather flaunt their
independence from such ethical and collegial practices as Ransdell
outlined. It will no longer be tolerated, and those who have previously
been warned their anti-collegial conduct on the List jeopardizes their
continuation on Peirce-L. In short, they will be removed without further on
or off List discussion.

Gary Richmond (writing as forum moderator)

On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 12:15 AM John F Sowa  wrote:

> Jon, List,
>
> I'm sorry, but I  don't understand why you're jumping through all kinds of
> hoops to defend a rather poor choice of terminology that Peirce happened to
> mention just once.  (Except for once more in the LNB.)
>
> First, the terms potisign, actisign, and famisign are the kinds of words
> that Peirce frequently coined.  The three pages of EP2 show a great deal of
> thought, which is much more than he wrote about that trichotomy in 1906.
> It's also very closely reasoned thought, which is consistent with many
> issues he had been discussing for years.  Except for the fact that those
> words are rather ugly, they are the result of deep thinking.
>
> By contrast, the word 'tone' in 1906 sounds like a quick choice based on
> one rather rare kind of sign (a tone of voice).  The word 'mark' is much
> more natural, more general, more consistent with his definition in
> Baldwin's dictionary, and much, much easier to explain to intelligent
> listeners and readers who are not Peirce scholars.  (And I believe that
> those people are the most important audience for Peirce scholars to
> address.)
>
> Furthermore, Tony Jappy has been devoting years to his analysis of the
> evolution of 

[PEIRCE-L] Fwd: [teadus.biosemiotics:9385] ONE-DAY CONFERENCE ON SEMIOTIC AGENCY IN CELEBRATION OF ALEXEI SHAROV´S 70TH ANNIVERSARY

[Gary Richmond]

FYI: GR

Dear all,

on Wednesday April 10th (tomorrow) at 10.00-14.10 CET the one-day
international conference “The active forces of development and semiotic
agency (Developmental and semiotic agency)" will be held at the Institute
of Scientific Information for Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of
Sciences (INION RAN) in Moscow, Russia, and online. The conference, which
is held in Russian (mainly) and English, is organized in celebration of the
70th anniversary of Alexei Sharov and hosted by Mikhail Ilyin.

The conference starts with a presentation of the book *Semiotic agency:
Science beyond mechanism
 *(Sharov &
Tønnessen 2021), and features talks by Alexei Sharov, Morten Tønnessen,
S.T. Zolyan, S.V. Chebanov, V.I. Arshinov and M.V. Ilyin. The event can be
attended digitally by following this Zoom link:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/88090035919?pwd=UUqbzYrUYJ64gAGrgVLhqUyLCR0mkK.1
(identificator:
880 9003 5919; password: 222986)

My best,

-- 
*Morten Tønnessen*
Professor of philosophy at University of Stavanger´s Department of social
studies  — Secretary of Nordic
Association for Semiotic Studies  — Member of
Norway´s Council for Animal Ethics 
---
ADDRESS Nådlandsbråtet 25, 4034 Stavanger, Norway — PHONE NO. (+47) 9423
7093
---
Academic blog: Utopian Realism 
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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.

[PEIRCE-L] Catalogues of Conceptual Structures?

[Andrius Kulikauskas]

Greetings from the Lithuanian countryside!

Please, does anybody know of any websites that list or catalogue examples
of conceptual structures, cognitive frameworks, polychotomies and so on?  I
am interested not only in Peirce but in all manner of thinkers, disciplines
and worldviews.  I am also interested in books, papers and databases.

I have found some pages at Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichotomy_(philosophy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dichotomies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dilemmas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Philosophical_problems
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism
And, of course,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_(Peirce)

I have also found this list of metatheories
https://www.arc.voyage/um-library

I am curious what has already done because I intend to create my own online
database.  It would be nice for that to be a collaborative project.
Currently, I have in mind a simple work flow where relevant links can be
dumped
https://www.math4wisdom.com/wiki/Exposition/FrameworkDump
perhaps curated further, then placed into tables
https://www.math4wisdom.com/wiki/Exposition/FrameworkTables
and then each scholar could organize them further according to their own
system. For example, I have a theory of three minds (Unconscious,
Conscious, Consciousness) and here are about 15 examples:
https://www.math4wisdom.com/wiki/Exposition/FrameworkCatalogue

This is relevant for me because, since childhood, in my quest to know
everything and apply that knowledge usefully, I have developed a private
language of concepts, which I call Wondrous Wisdom
https://www.math4wisdom.com/wiki/Exposition/Vocabulary
Here is an overview of the basic structures
https://www.math4wisdom.com/wiki/Research/20170929TimeSpaceDecisionMaking
I speak of it as a private language but, from my own point of view, I am
inquiring into absolute truth.

Similarly, I think of Peirce, Jesus, Plato, Kant, Hume, Christopher
Alexander, Buckminster Fuller, Karl Friston, and so on, as having developed
their own private languages which their enthusiasts became fluent in.  In
my case, I have started Math 4 Wisdom, http://www.math4wisdom.com as a
language club for learning Wondrous Wisdom, but in particular, showing
where the conceptual structures arise in advanced mathematics.

For example, here is a presentation "The Yoneda Embedding Expresses
Whether, What, How, Why"
https://www.math4wisdom.com/wiki/Research/YonedaEmbeddingFoursome
Another presentation is "Bott Periodicity Models Consciousness? Preliminary
Exploration"
https://www.math4wisdom.com/wiki/Exposition/20231126BottPeriodicity

My goal is that my own private language could be understood by others as
scientifically useful and meaningful.  Ultimately, I want to work toward a
shared language that would be relevant for the many private languages.

Thus I want to start by learning what catalogues already exist, if any.

Peirce's ideas - iicon, index, symbol - abduction, deduction, induction -
firstness, secondness, thirdness - are important in my own philosophy and
have also come up in our study groups on Sociology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUsVCfB5P-A=PL4jG0jj6NdI1DMOhSMYjQVSg_9-E72x7H
and also Ecotechnology, through the work of Jere Northrop and John Roy
Hammann and the AutoGnomics project.

Thank you for helping me!

Andrius

Andrius Kulikauskas
math4wis...@gmail.com
http://www.math4wisdom.com
Eiciunai, Lithuania
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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.

[PEIRCE-L] Modern vs. classical structures of opposition: A discussion - LUW April 10, 4pm CET

[jean-yves beziau]

Logica Universalis Webinar
April 10, 2024 at 4pm CET

Speakers:  Didier Dubois, Henri Prade & Agnès Rico
Title: "Modern vs. classical structures of opposition: A discussion"
Abstract: "The aim of this work is to revisit the proposal made by Dag
Westerst°
ahl a decade ago when he provided a modern reading of the traditional square
of opposition and of related structures. We propose a formalization of this
modern
view and contrast it with the classical one.We discuss what may be a modern
hexagon of opposition and a modern cube, and show their interest in
particular
for relating quantitative expressions."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11787-024-00347-1

Associate organization: ADRIA-IRIT, CNRS
https://www.irit.fr/en/departement/dep-artificial-intelligence/adria-team/
Presented by Didier Dubois and Henri Prade

Chair : Sayantan Roy, Assistant Editor LU

Everybody is welcome to join, register here:
https://cassyni.com/events/LMSPiEvqN9JUsvzryqD1f3
Jean-Yves Beziau
Editor of Logica Universalis and Organizer of LUW
https://philpeople.org/profiles/jean-yves-beziau
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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.