Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mark Token Type

[Gary Richmond]

Edwina, List,

This is in response to your message to the List today as well as your
addendum to that message. For now I mainly have just a few questions:

You are no doubt aware of Peirce's insistence on a rigorous ethics of
terminology. Are you suggesting that he is incorrect in his insistence
that terminology matters, and can matter significantly -- that is, that it
can constitute a difference which makes a difference? If you disagree
(which you appear to), why?

And are you suggesting that scholars and scientists who may occasionally
focus on terminology -- recently, on the List, John Sowa, Jon Alan Schmidt,
and myself -- are slipping into nominalism? I myself cannot see how a
rigorous insistence on the importance of terminology has *anything* to do
with nominalism. Please explain how it does. And please also include your
definition of nominalism.

And do you disagree that using different terminology can correlate with
having different concepts?

Further, if my memory isn't too diminished, I don't recall anyone on the
List referring to you as a "pseudo-Peircean," something which would indeed
constitute unacceptable 'name calling' on Peirce-L. However, today
*you* suggested
that some on this list are "Purists" which, had that expression been
directed at particular List participants would indeed constitute a mild
*kind* of 'name calling' depending on the context. However, I have no idea
what you mean by alleging that some here are 'purists' -- please explain
what you mean by this.

It seems to be that there are many rooms in the houses of Peircean
semeiotic, of Peircean pragmaticism -- more generally, of semiotic and
pragmatism -- and that they are not mutually exclusive, that a
scholar/scientist can be interested both in theory and practice (and
although Peirce once denied it, he himself accomplished much in both theory
and practice).

So it would be quite helpful if you would clarify your comments today.

And I will add, although he might prefer that I not, that Jon Alan Schmidt,
not infrequently accused by some here as being a sort of Peircean
theoretical 'purist' simply because, as he wrote yesterday, his "own
priority is accurately understanding, helpfully explaining, and fruitfully
building on *Peirce's *views by carefully studying and adhering to *his *
words," is an accomplished and distinguished structural engineer, often
invited to speak at conventions and other gatherings because of his
expertise.

And among the 44 papers of his cited on Google Scholar one will find, along
with the specifically Peircean ones, some papers in which Peircean thought
is applied in various ways, including engineering reasoning and ethics.
 https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=EfQhY7cJ=en

Best,

Gary



On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 10:38 AM Edwina Taborsky 
wrote:

> 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 
> 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 
> 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mark Token Type

[John F Sowa]

Jon,

To begin, I'll quote a highly respected authority about arguments from 
authority.  The following passage about authority comes from Wikiquote, a 
source that is widely considered an authoritative source of information:

"Appeal to an authority which depends on human reason is the weakest kind of 
proof.

- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

...when we engage in argument we must look to the weight of reason rather than 
authority. Indeed, students who are keen to learn often find the authority of 
those who claim to be teachers to be an obstacle, for they cease to apply their 
own judgement and regard as definitive the solution offered by the mentor of 
whom they approve. I myself tend to disapprove of the alleged practice of the 
Pythagoreans: the story goes that if they were maintaining some position in 
argument, and were asked why, they would reply: "The master said so", the 
master being Pythagoras. Prior judgement exercised such sway that authority 
prevailed even when unsupported by reason."

My argument for the word 'mark' as a better choice than 'tone' is based on my 
own reasoning long before I noticed that Tony Jappy had made the same choice.  
And in the discussions, I supported every point with my own reasons.  However, 
I realized that some readers, such as you, might disagree.  So I said that if 
you don't believe me, go to another Peirce scholar who has spent years of 
research on these issues.

That is the kind of citation that is REQUIRED in peer-reviewed publications in 
every field.  The author is expected to cite related research.  Instead of 
criticizing me, you should thank me for providing that additional information.

JAS:  That is not my understanding of why scrupulously citing references is 
required by academic publications these days, unlike in Peirce's time. Instead, 
it is primarily to give credit where it is due for ideas that are not the 
author's.

I suggest that you read (or reread) some of the articles in the Summa 
Theologiae by Aquinas.  In every article, he cites what other scholars have 
written pro and con each of the statements he is trying to prove.  He then 
explains the arguments he agrees with and refutes the ones he disagrees with.

The methods of citation by Aquinas established the polices for scholarly 
writing for universities for the next 800 years.  At the top, I quoted Aquinas. 
 I suggest that you read (or reread) a few of his articles.  My citations of 
Jappy's writings are the same kind of references that Aquinas used to cite 
authors who supported the points he was trying to prove.

And by the way, Peirce had also read quite a bit of the writings by Aquinas (in 
Latin, of course).  In fact, the commentary about Aristotle by Aquinas is still 
regarded as a good introduction today.  In fact, Hilary Putnam recommended it.

Those recommendations are very respectable.  They're the kind of references I 
made to Jappy.  Anybody who criticizes that as a fallacy deserves a huge amount 
of criticism.

John


From: "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
Sent: 4/11/24 10:28 PM

John, List:

JFS: First, let me dismiss a false claim: "appeal to authority is a logical 
fallacy". Whenever Jon, Gary, or anyone else quotes an entry in a dictionary or 
an encyclopedia, they are making an appeal to authority.

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy when "the opinion of an influential 
figure is used as evidence to support an argument" 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority). Quoting a dictionary 
or encyclopedia--including Wikipedia, as in this case--is not a fallacious 
appeal to authority because such references contain facts on which there is 
broad consensus, not opinions whose persuasiveness depends primarily on the 
eminence and purported expertise of a particular person who holds them.

JFS: The requirement to cite references in an academic publication shows that 
authors are required to show the experts whose authority they depend on for 
their own claims.

That is not my understanding of why scrupulously citing references is required 
by academic publications these days, unlike in Peirce's time. Instead, it is 
primarily to give credit where it is due for ideas that are not the author's.

JFS: In fact, when Peirce scholars quote Peirce, they are appealing to him as 
an authority.

Quoting Peirce to support scholarly claims about his own views is also not a 
fallacious appeal to authority. On the contrary, as I have said before, his is 
the only authority that matters in such a context. As someone once said, 
"Anything other than an exact quotation is the opinion of the author. Nobody 
can claim that his or her ideas are what Peirce intended" 
(https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2024-02/msg00085.html).

JFS: The English words 'tone', 'tinge', 'tuone', and 'potisign' are terms in 
exactly the same way that the word 'mark' is a term.

Obviously, all these English words are terms--no one is disputing that. The 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Panel on Semiotic Exploration of Ecology at the 2024 Warsaw IASS-AIS World Congress

[Gary Richmond]

Dear Claudio,

This is exciting news indeed, and in an area of semiotics which I know
holds considerable interest to at least several members of the Peirce-L
forum including me.

Thank you for all the excellent work you have done and continue to do in
the Peircean semiotics -- including his three categories -- of design and
ecology, including the semiotics of art, architecture, etc. I'm delighted
that many of your works are available in English; were my Spanish better,
I'd delve into some of your work written in that beautiful language.
https://uba.academia.edu/CGuerri

 I have plans to be in Europe from September 9 through the 24th (Brussels,
Amsterdam/Tilburg, and Berlin) and will see if it is still possible to
adjust my schedule to include your Warsaw panel.

Warm regards,

Gary

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 2:27 PM Claudio Guerri 
wrote:

> Dear Friends and colleagues, we have some excellent news to share with you!
>
> The network "SPACE SEMIOTICS [Design, Architecture, Urbanism, Landscaping]"
> https://significant.design/subscribe is organizing a *panel *titled: *Semiotic
> Explorations of Ecology (in Design, Architecture, Urbanism, Landscaping)* 
> (Isabel
> Marcos & Claudio Guerri) this year within the framework of the *16th
> IASS-AIS World Congress devoted to Signs and Realities, 2-6 September 2024
> in Warsaw, Poland.*
>
> *The call is open until the 15th April 2024, you can submit your paper
> here:* *https://www.semcon2024.com/abstrakty*
> 
>
> * How the registration process works:*
>
> *1. You pre-register without paying.*
>
> *2. You get your registration ID (RegID).*
>
> *3. With your RegID you can submit your paper abstracts until 15 April
> 2024.*
>
> At the end of the panel, we will include a round-table to discuss the
> unresolved problems of *Signs and Realities*, *Ecology in Design* and
> *Design* and *Morphology* in general. With this call we are asking all
> interested scholars to participate in this round-table and to propose their
> own point of view on applied semiotics.
>
> We will finally meet in person!
>
> Isabel Marcos & Claudio Guerri
>
> *Description of the panel proposal:*
>
> Ecology, when examined from a semiotic perspective, reveals itself as a
> complex reality, intertwining tangible environmental phenomena with
> theoretical, physical and symbolic representations. This manifestation
> possibilities invites us to explore the interconnections between semiotics,
> design, architecture, urbanism and landscaping. Thus, ecology, connecting
> the tangible aspects of the environment to the different semiotic
> constructions shape our understanding and interaction with this reality.
>
> *1. Semiotics in Environmental Communication:* Explore how semiotic
> systems contribute to the communication of environmental issues.
>
> *2. Semiotic Analysis of the Ecological Crisis:* Investigation of
> semiotic representations of the ecological crisis in different discourses.
>
> *3. Ecological Language and Technological Innovation:* Study of the
> creation of a specific semiotic language to discuss ecological issues, with
> an analysis of the impact of technological innovations.
>
> *4. Semiotic Ethics in Design:* Explore the ethical implications of
> semiotics related to growth in the fields of design. How do signs
> contribute to the formulation of new ecological ethics in design?
>
> *5. Semiotics in Bioclimatic Architecture:* Examine the role of
> bioclimatic architecture and how the signifying elements of this approach
> are used to create the maximum ecological impact of natural resources.
>
> *6. Urban Semiotics and Environmental Policy: *Examining how new
> ecological practices in the urban context impact environmental policies.
> What is the ecological significance of these urban practices and how do
> they shape environmental policies?
>
> *7. Landscape Semiotics and Ecological Impact:* Study of sign usage in
> vegetal, urban, and architectural landscapes, taking into account their
> ecological impact. How does landscape semiotics influence environmental
> awareness and sustainable practices?
>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> 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 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mark Token Type

[John F Sowa]

Robert, Jon, List,

Thanks for the note.  There is nothing controversial about it, and I agree with 
Jon's comments.

But I would note that Peirce's later shift to semes, phemes, and delomes 
enabled him to simplify, some of the issues, and generalize others.  For 
example, the idea of hypoicons seemed to be a powerful new concept that Peirce 
discussed in only one MS.He didn't need it later because he introduced 
semes as a generalization of rhemes.

This is just one of many ways that Peirce's system developed during the decade 
of 1903 to 1913.  To avoid disturbing this moment of agreement, I won't say 
anything more.

John


From: "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
Sent: 4/12/24 1:18 PM
To: Peirce-L 
Cc: Ahti Pietarinen , Francesco Bellucci 
, Anthony Jappy , 
"Houser, Nathan R." 
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mark Token Type

Robert, List:

Thanks for the reminder about this brief paper, which we discussed on the List 
back in November 2021. As I said at that time, it is based on Peirce's 1903 
taxonomy with three trichotomies and ten sign classes, not his 1906-1908 
taxonomies with ten trichotomies and 66 sign classes; and my only quibble with 
it is that it seems to equate "token" with "replica," which is why it 
identifies only six classes of tokens. Instead, "token" directly replaces 
"sinsign," while "instance" directly replaces "replica" (CP 4.537, 1906). 
Accordingly, there are six classes of replicas/instances and three additional 
classes of sinsigns/tokens, which correspond to the outermost oval in each Venn 
diagram--iconic sinsigns/tokens, rhematic indexical sinsigns/tokens, and dicent 
sinsigns/tokens.

RM: 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.

Indeed, here is what Peirce himself says about this.

CSP: A Qualisign is a quality which is a sign. It cannot actually act as a sign 
until it is embodied; but the embodiment has nothing to do with its character 
as a sign.
A Sinsign ... is an actual existent thing or event which is a sign. It can only 
be so through its qualities; so that it involves a qualisign, or rather, 
several qualisigns. But these qualisigns are of a peculiar kind and only form a 
sign through being actually embodied. (CP 2:244-245, EP 2:291, 1903)

CSP: Second, an Iconic Sinsign is any object of experience in so far as some 
quality of it makes it determine the idea of an Object. Being an Icon, and thus 
a sign by likeness purely, of whatever it may be like, it can only be 
interpreted as a sign of essence, or Rheme. It will embody a Qualisign. (CP 
2.255, EP 2:294, 1903)

Although qualisigns/tones as "indefinite significant characters" must be 
carefully distinguished from legisigns/types as "definitely significant Forms" 
(CP 4.537; cf. R 339:276r-277r, 1906 Apr 2), both must be embodied in 
sinsigns/tokens in order to act as signs. In fact, every sinsign/token involves 
qualisigns/tones of a peculiar kind, and every iconic sinsign/token embodies a 
qualisign.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 5:30 AM robert marty  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://martyrobert.academia.edu/
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mark Token Type

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Robert, List:

Thanks for the reminder about this brief paper, which we discussed on the
List back in November 2021. As I said at that time, it is based on Peirce's
1903 taxonomy with three trichotomies and ten sign classes, not his
1906-1908 taxonomies with ten trichotomies and 66 sign classes; and my only
quibble with it is that it seems to equate "token" with "replica," which is
why it identifies only six classes of tokens. Instead, "token" directly
replaces "sinsign," while "instance" directly replaces "replica" (CP 4.537,
1906). Accordingly, there are six classes of replicas/instances and three
additional classes of sinsigns/tokens, which correspond to the outermost
oval in each Venn diagram--iconic sinsigns/tokens, rhematic indexical
sinsigns/tokens, and dicent sinsigns/tokens.

RM: 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.


Indeed, here is what Peirce himself says about this.

CSP: A *Qualisign *is a quality which is a sign. It cannot actually act as
a sign until it is embodied; but the embodiment has nothing to do with its
character as a sign.
A *Sinsign ...* is an actual existent thing or event which is a sign. It
can only be so through its qualities; so that it involves a qualisign, or
rather, several qualisigns. But these qualisigns are of a peculiar kind and
only form a sign through being actually embodied. (CP 2:244-245, EP 2:291,
1903)

CSP: Second, an Iconic Sinsign is any object of experience in so far as
some quality of it makes it determine the idea of an Object. Being an Icon,
and thus a sign by likeness purely, of whatever it may be like, it can only
be interpreted as a sign of essence, or Rheme. It will embody a Qualisign.
(CP 2.255, EP 2:294, 1903)


Although qualisigns/tones as "indefinite significant characters" must be
carefully distinguished from legisigns/types as "definitely significant
Forms" (CP 4.537; cf. R 339:276r-277r, 1906 Apr 2), both must be embodied
in sinsigns/tokens in order to *act *as signs. In fact, every
sinsign/token *involves
*qualisigns/tones of a peculiar kind, and every iconic sinsign/token *embodies
*a qualisign.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 5:30 AM robert marty 
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://martyrobert.academia.edu/ *
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mark Token Type

[Edwina Taborsky]

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  
> 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  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://martyrobert.academia.edu/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Le ven. 12 avr. 2024 à 05:04, Jon Alan Schmidt > > 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 
>>> 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mark Token Type

[Edwina Taborsky]

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  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://martyrobert.academia.edu/
> 
> 
> 
> Le ven. 12 avr. 2024 à 05:04, Jon Alan Schmidt  > 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, 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mark Token Type

[robert marty]

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://martyrobert.academia.edu/ *



Le ven. 12 avr. 2024 à 05:04, Jon Alan Schmidt  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 / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 6:10 PM John F Sowa  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