List:
Having received no corrections or objections to my summary of the relevant
Peirce quotes, I would like to offer some further comments.
In these contexts, at least, Quasi-minds are clearly indispensable to
Sign-action. In fact, there must be at least *two *Quasi-minds (#4-5)
involved, such that the Sign serves as a medium for communication of a
Form *between
*them (#6), "welding" them such that they are at one in the Sign itself.
Hence the term "Sign" here evidently refers to what Peirce elsewhere called
a *genuine *Sign--one that requires Quasi-minds serving as *both *utterer *and
*interpreter, which may be past and future versions of the *same *Quasi-mind.
By contrast, a *natural *(or degenerate) Sign does not require a Quasi-mind
to *utter *it, just a Dynamic Object to *determine *it.
The Dynamic Object does this *only *in the particular respect that enables
the (genuine or natural) Sign to act upon the second Quasi-mind *as if *the
Dynamic Object itself were acting upon it (#7). I take this "respect" to
be the Immediate Object, the *partial *combination of attributes of the
Dynamic Object by which the Sign *denotes *it. Thus "deputized" by its
Object, the Sign *determines *the second Quasi-mind to produce a feeling,
exertion (action), or other Sign (thought) as its Dynamic Interpretant
(#8), which is a *singular *event (#3). The Sign is best regarded as this
very determination of the interpreting Quasi-mind, rather than as an
Object that
addresses itself to that Quasi-mind (#9).
So what is a Quasi-mind? My last tentative definition called it a bundle
of Collateral Experience and Habits of Interpretation (i.e., *reacting
substance*) that retains the capacity for Habit-change (i.e., *learning by
experience*), and thus can be the Quasi-utterer of a *genuine *Sign (since
this requires a *purpose*) and the Quasi-interpreter of *any *Sign. I
still think that this is close to the mark, but can now clarify that a
Quasi-mind is a *Sign *that constitutes an aggregate or complex of all
*previous
*Signs that have determined it, which are so connected together as to
produce *one *Interpretant (#1). As such, a Quasi-mind *includes *the
Immediate Objects of all those previous Signs, which serve as its
Collateral Experience, as well as their Final Interpretants, which serve as
its Habits of Interpretation.
I also still believe that the capacity for Habit-change is what
distinguishes a Quasi-mind from a brute Thing--a strictly *material *reacting
substance whose Habits of Interpretation have become inveterate ("matter as
effete mind," CP 6.25; 1891). I was previously leaning toward also
requiring a Quasi-mind to be a center of consciousness (i.e., *unity of
feeling*), based primarily on the following passage, as expounded in a
recent book chapter by Vincent Colapietro ("Habits, Awareness, and
Autonomy," in Donna E. West and Myrdene Anderson, Eds., *Consensus on
Peirce's Concept of Habit*, pp. 297-313).
CSP: Of course, each personality is based upon a "bundle of habits," as
the saying is that a man is a bundle of habits. But a bundle of habits
would not have the unity of self-consciousness. That unity must be given as
a centre for the habits. The brain shows no central cell. The unity of
consciousness is therefore not of physiological origin. It can only be
metaphysical. So far as feelings have any continuity, it is the
metaphysical nature of feeling to have a *unity*. (CP 6.228-229; 1898)
However, I now realize--since Peirce explicitly stated that consciousness
is *not *logically necessary for a Quasi-mind (#2)--that this is instead
what distinguishes a *person *(or personality, or *human *Mind) from a
"mere" Quasi-mind. Furthermore, it is what makes *self-control* possible,
as opposed to the "uncontrolled inferences" of non-human animals (cf. CP
7.444-446; c. 1893). In other words, *all *Quasi-minds are capable of
Habit-change when Sign-actions in the *Outer *World produce a *new *Final
Interpretant that supplements or replaces its *previous *Habits of
Interpretation; but *only *persons are capable of *self-controlled*
Habit-change by means of *purposeful *Sign-actions in the *Inner *World
(cf. CP 4.157, c. 1897; EP 2:412-413, 1907; CP 5.493, EP 2:418-419, 1907;
EP 2:431, 1907; EP 2:549-550n49, 1907). Conveniently, most of these
citations come from "Pragmatism," so I continue to look forward to Gary
R.'s planned List discussion of those manuscripts.
As for the Existential Graphs, I believe that everything above is
consistent with recognizing the sheet of assertion or Phemic Sheet as the
Quasi-mind (aggregate or complex) of all Signs scribed upon it, in
which the Graphist (utterer) and Intepreter are at one (#10), and a
Dicisign of all that is tacitly taken for granted between them (#11)--i.e.,
the overlap of their Collateral Experience and Habits of Interpretation
that makes their communication possible.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 12:00 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> List:
>
> Still attempting to avoid any interpretive commentary just yet, here is
> what those quotes tell us about Quasi-minds, in their likely order of
> composition.
>
> - EP 2:389 - Every Sign, or nearly every Sign, is a determination of a
> Quasi-mind.
> - EP 2:391 - The Object determines the Sign only in the respect that
> enables the Sign to act upon the interpreting Quasi-mind as if the Object
> itself were acting upon it.
> - EP 2:391 - A Sign is best regarded as a determination of a
> Quasi-mind, rather than as an outward object that addresses itself to a
> Quasi-mind.
> - EP 2:544n22 - A Sign is a medium for communication of a Form among
> at least two (if not three) Quasi-minds.
> - EP 2:544n22 - Quasi-minds are things capable of varied determination
> as to Forms of the kind communicated, but it is not logically necessary
> that they possess consciousness.
> - EP 2:545n25 - A Quasi-mind is a perfect Sign, the aggregate formed
> by a Sign and all the Signs which its occurrence carries with it.
> - EP 2:545n25 - A Quasi-mind is the sheet of assertion of Existential
> Graphs.
> - EP 2:545n25 - A Quasi-mind is, like anything else, susceptible to
> determination in a certain way; and each such determination is an event
> occurring once for all and never again.
> - SS 195 - Every Sign must be a determination of a Quasi-mind, which
> is itself a determinable Sign, even if that Quasi-mind is one's future
> self.
> - CP 4.536 - A Sign produces an Interpretant in the Quasi-mind that is
> its interpreter by determining the latter to a feeling, exertion, or Sign.
> - CP 4.550 - Whatever represents The Truth in our Diagram must be
> regarded as the Quasi-mind of all the Signs represented on it.
> - CP 4.550 - Signs so connected that a complex of two of them can have
> one Interpretant are the determinations of one Sign, which is a Quasi-mind.
> - CP 4.551 - Connected Signs must have a Quasi-mind, and there are no
> isolated Signs.
> - CP 4.551 - Every Sign requires at least two distinct Quasi-minds, a
> Quasi-utterer and a Quasi-interpreter, which are at one (welded) in the
> Sign itself.
> - CP 4.553 - The Phemic Sheet is the Quasi-mind, which is determined
> by the Graph-instances scribed on it, and in which the Graphist and
> Interpreter are at one.
> - CP 4.553 - This Quasi-mind is a Seme of The Truth, the widest
> Universe of Reality, and a Pheme of all that is tacitly taken for granted
> between the Graphist and Interpreter.
>
> Peirce wrote all of these passages during the early months of 1906--the EP
> manuscripts in January, the SS letter in March, and the CP article in May
> (published in October). Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that they
> are mutually consistent, and attempt to ascertain *his *concept of a
> Quasi-mind accordingly. Combining and rearranging the information
> above--and thus finally injecting a little bit of interpretation on my
> part--yields the following condensed version.
>
> 1. A Quasi-mind is a *perfect *Sign, the aggregate or complex of all
> Signs that have previously determined it, which are so connected that they
> can have *one *Interpretant.
> 2. A Quasi-mind is a *determinable *Sign, capable of varied
> determination as to Forms of the kind communicated by a Sign, but not
> necessarily *conscious*.
> 3. Every such determination of a Quasi-mind is an *event *that occurs
> once for all and never again.
> 4. A Sign cannot be isolated, but is *always *connected to other
> Signs, and thus *must *have a Quasi-mind.
> 5. A Sign in fact requires at least* two* distinct Quasi-minds, its
> utterer and its interpreter, which are at one (welded) in the Sign itself.
> 6. A Sign is a medium for communication of a Form *between *these
> Quasi-minds, which may be past and future versions of the *same *
> Quasi-mind.
> 7. A Sign is determined by its Object *only *in the respect that
> enables it to act upon a Quasi-mind (its interpreter) *as if* the
> Object itself were acting upon that Quasi-mind.
> 8. A Sign is the determination of a Quasi-mind (its interpreter) to
> produce a feeling, exertion, or other Sign *as *its Interpretant.
> 9. A Sign is best regarded as this *determination *of a Quasi-mind
> (its interpreter), rather than as an outward *Object *that addresses
> itself to that Quasi-mind.
> 10. For Existential Graphs, the sheet of assertion or Phemic Sheet
> that represents *The Truth* is the Quasi-mind of all Signs scribed on
> it, in which the Graphist and Interpreter are at one.
> 11. This Quasi-mind is a *Seme *[Rheme] of the widest Universe of
> Reality, and a *Pheme *[Dicisign] of all that is tacitly taken for
> granted between the Graphist and Interpreter.
>
> Does anything here seem incongruent with the original quotes, or have I
> accurately summarized them?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
-----------------------------
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 .
