Dear list,
I wish to bring attention back to a critical assertion (largely willfully neglected) in which Peirce states “man is a sign”, and in a different place, “this is man”. *It was at this point, for example, that Ladd-Franklin began to lose confidence in him. As Brent points out, “Man’s Glassy Essence,” the fourth of the five essays in the series, “seemed to Peirce’s former student Christine Ladd-Franklin to be clear evidence that he was losing his mind”.* So then, is the meaning of Peirce’s assertion clear? Is man a human being or an angry ape, in fact? For to say that man is a human being at times and beastly at times doesn’t appear to get at what it is we wish to say. For was not Caesar the angry ape more human than man? I mean, what is it to “reflect the struggle of humanity as we try to overcome our faults and achieve our true potential for good.” What then is man, Mind or Quasi-mind? Do you see the thought that is in us from the Thought in which we are? With best wishes, Jerry R PS. So as not to repeat other scholars’ arguments and to get ahead of the constant itching and scratching, here is a link that represents one example by one person for an arrangement of what has already been said (I hope you will note that it recapitulates recent conversations that has already happened in this list), but I will understand if the ideas are most abstruse, in which I case, I fear he may already have left me, and that what I am now writing is for the compositor and proof-reader exclusively. For example, somewhere is recognition deliberation and purpose. http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/SAAP/MSU/P23.html On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Jon, list > > I'm not going to get into an extensive argument with you, yet again, over > terms. > > I've stated my interpretation - and you aren't dealing with it but are > using your own definitions. > > I consider that the Sign is: DO-[IO-R-II} and as such, IS an interaction. > Again, as Peirce noted, the Quasi-mind ]and the Sign] functions within a > dialogue between the 'utterer' and the 'interpreter' - even if this is a > dialogue with oneself - and most certainly can be between two and > more subjects. After all, one can hardly deny that thinking is an action > and as such, is carried out not only within one Agent but within several > and indeed, a community of Agents. > > Edwina > > > > > > On Fri 16/02/18 5:35 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: > > Edwina: I suppose it depends on how you define "symbol," but for now we > can leave that aside. The third quote that Gary R. posted states, "The > quasi-mind is itself a sign, a determinable sign"; and a Sign is not itself > an interaction, it is one of three Correlates in a triadic relation. > Furthermore, the same quote states earlier that "All thinking is ... an > appeal from the momentary self to the better considered self of the > immediate and of the general future"; so whatever else a Quasi-mind might > be, it is clearly a "self," not an interaction between two (or more) > "selves." > > Dan: Did you perhaps mean to say, "there are several other species that > have learned signs, but only species of the genus Homo ... have had > symbols"? > > Thanks, > > Jon S. > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Everett, Daniel <dever...@bentley.edu> > wrote: > >> Edwina, >> >> What you say about symbolic users is exactly my point in How Language >> Began. >> >> In my forthcoming Aeon article on Homo erectus, I note that there are >> several other species that have learned symbols, but on species of the >> genus Homo (erectus, Neanderthal, sapiens) have had symbols. >> >> Dan >> >> On Feb 16, 2018, at 4:14 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: >> >> Jon, list: >> >> A non-symbolic user, to me, is a non-human. I consider that all realms, >> the physic-chemical, biologic and human conceptual realms, engage in >> semiosis, but only the human realm uses symbols in this interaction. You >> will probably disagree. >> >> Yes, I am suggesting that the term Quasi-mind, which applies to dialogic >> interaction, is a momentary event within the interactions of the utterer >> and interpreter. >> >> Edwina >> >> On Fri 16/02/18 4:46 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: >> >> Edwina, List: >> >> I will review and comment on the quotes that Gary R. posted at a later >> time, and also offer my current working definition of "Quasi-mind." For >> now, I am just seeking clarification of your brief remarks below. >> >> 1. What do you mean by "a non-symbolic user"? >> 2. Are you suggesting that the term "Quasi-mind" applies to "dialogic >> interaction" as a momentary event, rather than each of the individual >> participant(s) therein? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> >> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >> wrote: >> >>> Gary R, List: >>> >>> Again, my reading of these sections is that the Quasi-Mind appears in >>> the semiosic action of interaction. >>> >>> If one considers that Mind is an essential and universal component of >>> all existence and dialogue is equally essential to semiosis, then, I am >>> understanding the Quasi-Mind as appearing within the dialogic interaction. >>> So, even if the individual himself has ONE mind, in the dialogic >>> semiosic interaction, a Quasi-mind develops within the interaction. Two >>> Quasi-minds, the utterer's and the interpreter's - even if the dialogue is >>> with oneself. And then, I presume, the Quasi-mind 'dissolves' and another >>> emerges within the next semiosic interaction. >>> >>> That's my reading of it at the moment. And, as with all semiosis, I >>> consider that this involves the physic-chemical and biological realms as >>> well as the human conceptual realms of semiosis. >>> >>> Edwina >>> >> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:36 PM, Edwina Taborsky < tabor...@primus.ca> >> wrote: >> >>> Gary R, list >>> >>> I'd also like some clarification and discussion of the 'quasi-mind'. I >>> have a very different interpretation than that of JAS, who seems, to me at >>> least, to assign the term of a 'quasi-mind' to a non-symbolic user - >>> whereas, in the 4.551 selection, the term seems to me, at least to refer to >>> an act of connection of two Minds, such that they are in an almost >>> closed dialogic interaction. >>> >>> However, I'll leave it to others to start up this thread. >>> >>> Edwina >>> >> > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
