Jon A S and list, I find this discussion interesting. I have no thesis, instead just some observations for possible discussion.
Peirce in EP 2:488, as previously quoted, writes that the tinge/tone/mark precedes the token/type. Are three senses possibly being alluded to: sight, sound, and touch? In regard to the sound and touch, I recall Peirce’s use of the utterer and the graphist. The latter two suggest more agency. Saussure discussed the signifier/signified relation in terms of the phoneme and speech, and rarely the grapheme and writing. Speech can not be removed or erased, and it assumes permanence with quote marks. Derrida argued the grapheme preceded the phoneme, the written vs the spoken. How relevant that is remains to be seen. Frederick Sternfelt in the title of his insightful book _Diagrammatology_ makes implicit reference to Derrida’s _Grammatology_, whose work is given short shrift. It may be that preceed-ence is not an issue with the decisign, or not relevant. I do recall Peirce using tinge with regard to existential graphs, and tinges perhaps served a purpose, perhaps with reference to layering and juxtaposition in logic, that could not achieved with the spoken or written. It may be possible that Peirce ultimately chose mark rather than tinge or tone because it is more permanent. I apologize for lacking a thesis and any mistakes, and I look forward to your responses. Mary Libertin On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 1:45 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > John S., List: > > JFS: I believe that the subject line blurs too many issues. > > > It is a direct quote from Peirce (EP 2:303; 1904), and the point of the > thread is to explicate it. > > JFS: Since mark is his final choice, I'll use mark instead of tinge or > tone. > > > In the referenced passage, Peirce stated, "I dare say some of my former > names are better than those I now use" (EP 2:488; 1908). In fact, less > than two weeks earlier, he had asked Lady Welby specifically about Tone vs. > Mark (SS 83; 1908); and if I remember right--I do not have a copy of her > reply--she found Tone preferable because a tone of voice is a paradigmatic > example. Peirce also used Tone in what I think is one of his clearest > passages about this division of Signs (CP 4.537; 1906). > > JFS: General principle: In any occurrence of semiosis, there is always a > perceptible mark that is interpreted by some mind or quasi-mind as a token > of some type. > > > This may be a case of hair-splitting on my part, but I would suggest > instead that in any Instance of a Sign, the Tone is the character (or set > of characters) by which the interpreting Quasi-mind recognizes the > Sign-Replica to be an individual Token of the Type. Acquaintance with the > system of Signs (Essential Information) is necessary and sufficient for > this. It is analogous to the role of the Immediate Object as that by which > the interpreting Quasi-mind identifies the Dynamic Object of the Sign, for > which Collateral Experience (Experiential Information) is necessary and > sufficient (cf. CP 8.179, EP 2:494; 1909). > > As a Possible, the Tone can only have an Immediate Interpretant--"its > peculiar Interpretability before it gets any Interpreter." As an Existent, > the Token is what produces the Dynamic Interpretant--"that which is > experienced in each act of Interpretation." As a Necessitant, only the > Type has a Final Interpretant--"the one Interpretative result to which > every Interpreter is destined to come if the Sign is sufficiently > considered," which corresponds to the correct Habit of Interpretation > (Substantial Information). In other words, "The Immediate Interpretant is > an abstraction, consisting in a Possibility. The Dynamical Interpretant is > a single actual event. The Final Interpretant is that toward which the > actual tends" (SS 111; 1909). > > JFS: In summary, semiosis turns real possibilities into real actualities. > > > I agree, and would add that semiosis also governs Real actualities in > accordance with Real regularities. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:15 AM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > >> I believe that the subject line blurs too many issues. >> >> In various writings over the years, Peirce wrote about >> real possibilities. He also wrote about laws as real. >> >> In writing about modality, he distinguished three universes: >> the possible, the actual, and the necessitated. Actual >> existence is just one of the three ways of being real. >> >> He also distinguished logical possibility and necessity >> from real possibility and necessity. A theory is logically >> possible if it's consistent by itself. It's a real possibility >> if it's also consistent with the laws of nature. >> >> Given the above, apply the principles to signs. For that, >> consider Peirce's Letters to Lady Welby in 1908, in which >> he wrote about signs and the three universes (EP 2:478-480). >> >> In EP 2:488, he wrote that the triad Potisign (possible sign) / >> actisign (sign in act) / and famisign (familiar or general sign) >> might be called (tinge or tone or mark) / token / type. Since >> mark is his final choice, I'll use mark instead of tinge or tone. >> >> General principle: In any occurrence of semiosis, there is >> always a perceptible mark that is interpreted by some mind or >> quasi-mind as a token of some type. >> >> Prior to semiosis, the perceptible thing exists in actuality. >> But it's only a possible mark. It doesn't become an actual mark >> until it is sensed by some mind or quasi-mind. Then as soon as >> it's recognized, the actual mark becomes an actual token of some type. >> >> In summary, semiosis turns real possibilities into real actualities. >> >> John > > -- null
----------------------------- 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
