Re: [PEIRCE-L] List moderator;s request for a pause in the 'mark' v. 'tone' discussion, Classifying Signs (was Mark Token Type)
Ben, Gary, List, As I said in my last note, this thread has wasted everybody's time for no useful purpose. The real expert on this topic is Tony Jappy, who has devoted years of research and publications to this topic. As I said in the first notes, Tony is the expert on this topic.. But he does not enjoy debates of this kind -- for very good reason . So I posted excerpts from Tony's writings. And I would have been happy to discuss those issues, which are far more important then just supporting a choice of one label (tone) vs another (mark). But Jon would never stop. He kept repeating the same claim over and over and over again. He would not even consider the issues that Tony had published in books and articles. In any case, Tony is the expert. If anybody has any doubts on these issues, discuss them with Tony offline. I have zero desire to continue. John _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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] List moderator;s request for a pause in the 'mark' v. 'tone' discussion, Classifying Signs (was Mark Token Type)
Well said. Joe Ransdell would be proud. - Best, Ben On 4/20/2024 6:26 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: List, As Edwina accurately commented a few days ago, this exchange between John and Jon has become less a discussion and more a debate, so much so that I have commented -- now for the third time -- that it would seem to me that Peirce-L members now (and perhaps for some time now) have enough information in the form of argumentation and accompanying textual (and other) support to make up their own minds as to who has made the stronger case, John for 'mark' or Jon for 'tone'. Or perhaps it still remains a question in some Listers' minds. Or perhaps a certain ennui has settled in for some here leading to a sense of "so what?" or "who really cares?" or "enough already!" I personally have found the exchange stimulating and valuable. In any event, I am requesting that the two principal participants in the thread, Jon Alan Schmidt and John Sowa, as well as all others who have chimed in (including me), cease this particular discussion for now, including their not commenting on my decision as moderator for* all* to take a break from it. Should there be some good reason to take up the question again in the future, I would ask that the two principals first present that reasoning me off List. I would also ask that neither of them now attempt "to have the last word" in this matter. There are many topics of potential interest to members of Peirce-L such that I would hope that other List members, given a window of opportunity to suggest new topics for discussion, will indeed introduce them whether they result in a threaded discussion or not. Rarely have I suggested that certain participants were posting too frequently. But both Joe Ransdell and I finally had to intervene as List moderators in the interest of the Peirce-L community's well-being to say *just* that and to request in this case, that John and Jon post no more than twice a week for the next two weeks. Should either of them have questions regarding this action, I would ask them to please write me off List. The ideal for both Joe and me has always been that Peirce-L be as self-moderating as possible. But sometimes forms of participant *immoderation* calls for the moderator to step in the interest of the health of the List. I am doing so now. Best, Gary Richmond (writing as Peirce-L moderator, co-manager with 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 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 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] List moderator;s request for a pause in the 'mark' v. 'tone' discussion, Classifying Signs (was Mark Token Type)
List, As Edwina accurately commented a few days ago, this exchange between John and Jon has become less a discussion and more a debate, so much so that I have commented -- now for the third time -- that it would seem to me that Peirce-L members now (and perhaps for some time now) have enough information in the form of argumentation and accompanying textual (and other) support to make up their own minds as to who has made the stronger case, John for 'mark' or Jon for 'tone'. Or perhaps it still remains a question in some Listers' minds. Or perhaps a certain ennui has settled in for some here leading to a sense of "so what?" or "who really cares?" or "enough already!" I personally have found the exchange stimulating and valuable. In any event, I am requesting that the two principal participants in the thread, Jon Alan Schmidt and John Sowa, as well as all others who have chimed in (including me), cease this particular discussion for now, including their not commenting on my decision as moderator for* all* to take a break from it. Should there be some good reason to take up the question again in the future, I would ask that the two principals first present that reasoning me off List. I would also ask that neither of them now attempt "to have the last word" in this matter. There are many topics of potential interest to members of Peirce-L such that I would hope that other List members, given a window of opportunity to suggest new topics for discussion, will indeed introduce them whether they result in a threaded discussion or not. Rarely have I suggested that certain participants were posting too frequently. But both Joe Ransdell and I finally had to intervene as List moderators in the interest of the Peirce-L community's well-being to say *just* that and to request in this case, that John and Jon post no more than twice a week for the next two weeks. Should either of them have questions regarding this action, I would ask them to please write me off List. The ideal for both Joe and me has always been that Peirce-L be as self-moderating as possible. But sometimes forms of participant *immoderation* calls for the moderator to step in the interest of the health of the List. I am doing so now. Best, Gary Richmond (writing as Peirce-L moderator, co-manager with 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 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] Classifying Signs (was Mark Token Type)
Jon, List, On that point, we are in complete agreement: JFS: The word 'instance' is an OPTIONAL term that may be added to almost any noun in the English language. JAS: In general, this is true; but Peirce clearly and repeatedly states that it is important (if not mandatory) to recognize and maintain the distinction between a "graph" as a type and a "graph-instance" as a token, and sometimes he also advocates doing the same with "word" and "word-instance." Yes, indeed. That is also the reason why we need to use exactly the same character string with the option of adding "instance" whenever there might be any possibility of a mistake. As for the choice of Peirce's many character strings to adopt, see the attached 2-page extract from Tony Jappy's article and 2017 book on this subject. That extract contains four tables from his 2017 book, which started this lengthy thread. By the way, this is not an argument from authority. This is a citation of an expert who has done more research and publications on these issues than any of us -- in fact, more than any any subscriber to Peirce list. If anybody has any doubts on this subject, please consult Tony (email address above).Tony prefers not to debate issues on P-list because they can become interminably long (such as this one). But I am sure that he would be very gracious in answering any questions anyone may have. Meanwhile, the issues of relating Peirce's work to the 21st C are a more important topic for most subscribers to P-List. John Jappy_Tables.pdf Description: Adobe PDF document _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Classifying Signs (was Mark Token Type)
Follow-up: Please tell me, if it is not ok. to write a follow-up this way. Well, I think it is possible to have a table of ten classes of relations, with close analogy to Peirce´s table of ten classes of signs. Maybe it not even is an analogy, but just a renaming. But I think, it makes clear, that you can use Peirce´s semiotics for systems theory and relations theory. In the horizontal direction, instead of the correlates S, S-O, S-I relations, you have composition, determination, and classification. In the vertical direction you have the three kinds of each of these. These three kinds are, according to the categories, a qualitative kind, an actual (spatial/temporal) kind, and a mediative, functional kind. Or maybe it would be better (initially just because of analogy, later, due to examples it may turn out to be better), to call the horizontally arranged elements composition, composition-determination-relation, and composition-classification-relation. The way, ten classes of relations are possible, is the same way as with Peirce´s signs-table. That is all, very simple. A paper about that so far would just be a plagiarism, but maybe later I will deliver some examples. Then we will see, whether the renamed table makes sense, or the known signs-table would do as well for these. Best regards, Helmut 18. April 2024 um 16:44 Uhr Von: "Helmut Raulien" Dear All, Supplement: I want to add, that my classification of relations is not an arbitrary idea, but it is derived after the Peircean categories: Though Peirce said, that composition is thirdness, I think that is because it is a relation. But, if i classify it as a kind of relation, I do so calling it firstness in this respect, determination 2ns, and classification 3ns. I did so, because a composition is the same from any point of view. Determination, 2ns, is different from two points, that of the determining agent and that of the determined one. And it might be regarded actual, even brute somehow. Classification has, maybe in different ways like the interpretant, three points of view, e.g. subclass, superclass, reason for classifying. And it has to do with mediation and representation somehow. I further have catergorally classified composition in 1ns.: Composition of traits, this is 1ns, because you might also call it composition of qualities (this might even be better anyway). Spatiotemporal composition is 2ns, it suits to reaction and actuality. Functional composition is 3ns, it suits mediation. More specificly, these are 1ns of 1ns, 2ns of 1ns, 3ns of 1ns (because composition is 1ns). How to further classify determination and classification I have not satisfyingly worked out yet. At the end there would result a table like that of the sign classes. Maybe it is even more general, because I think, that a sign is a composition (of sounds, patterns,...), an object a determining agent, and an interpretant a classification. Or you might say so about the three correlates sign, sign-object-relation, sign-interpretant relation. The starting point of all this was Stanley N. Sathe´s paper "Salthe12Axiomathes", in which he described composition and subsumption as the two kinds of systems hierarchy. Subsumption, I think, is the relation between super- and subset in a classification. Or maybe it just is classification. I hope, that with this analysing tool, derived from the Peircean categories, it is possible to specify relations, e.g. tell, what involution exactly is in some certain case, e.g. the way a sign triad involves the three correlates exactly is, that the triad´s quality is composed from the qualities of the correlates (qualities-composition, was traits-composition, you see for me the communication with you all helps). Best regards, Helmut Jon, List, my ideas are all very tentative. Maybe composition, determination, classification are the three kinds of relation? These three kinds each have three kinds again, e.g. composition may be one of traits, spatiotemporal, or functional. So it might be possible, to talk more specificly, instead of saying "relation of relations of relations" e.g.: The ten classes of signs is (are as a whole) a classification of compositions of classes. More specifically, the first classification is a double one: ten possible classes versus 17 impossible ones, and the ten possible ones are further classified. The composition is the relation of the three correlates, this is a traits-composition, not a spatial one, as the DO is not close, and not a functional one, because the three correlates donot have a function, the function is irreducibly that of the triad. The last classification is having picked each correlate out of three respectively possibilities. I have called it "traits-composition", not "properties-comp.", because in English "property" has two meanings, trait and ownership. It means, that not the relation, but only the traits of the relation are composed of the
