Edwina, List: Despite the considerable progress that we have made in recent weeks at understanding each other better, we obviously still have some very fundamental differences in our readings of Peirce, models of semiosis, and uses of terminology.
What you call a Sign is what I call a Sign-action. What you call a Representamen is (more or less) what I call a Quasi-mind. What you now call a Quasi-mind is what I would call a communication or dialogue. When one person speaks a word to another, you call that word the first person's Dynamic Interpretant and the second person's Dynamic Object, while I call it an external Sign or Representamen that the first person utters and the second person interprets. There is no point in arguing about any of this. When I eventually discuss Gary R.'s quotes and provide my current working definition of a Quasi-mind, it is a given that you will disagree. Regards, Jon S. On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 5:33 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Jon - read my first post: I've underlined a key component.. > > 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. > > I've said that a Quasi-mind develops within 'connected Signs';i.e., > within a dialogic interaction. This Quasi-mind must BE within the two > Agents; there are two; that of the the utterer and the interpreter'. It > doesn't float in the air. It's a Mind-Aspect of the semiosic connection > between them. > > Edwina > > On Fri 16/02/18 6:17 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: > > Edwina, List: > > I was not trying to start another argument, just clarify the topic of > discussion. > > My reading of those quotes is that what you are calling "utterer," > "interpreter," "oneself," "subjects," "Agent," and "community" all > correspond to what Peirce meant by "Quasi-mind," rather than the > interaction between them. It is certainly what I will mean by "Quasi-mind" > as this discussion moves forward. If you still disagree, once again please > do not feel obligated to respond. > > Regards, > > Jon S. > > 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 .
