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* ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2024-04/msg00019.html). Again, why assume otherwise? Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 11:14 PM John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> 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's writings in his last decade. I have also been > devoting a great deal of study to the evolution of other aspects, > especially EGs during that decade. And I find Tony's analyses convincing > and compatible with my own studies and with other studies of Peirce's last > decade. > > There is nothing further to discuss about this topic. You said that you > had read Tony's writings. i strongly urge you to study them. > > 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.
