BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; } Jon, list
1. I see no reason why a rhematic indexical legisign, with its qualities that fit all of Peirce's stated description of a 'perfect sign' cannot fulfill being a 'sheet of assertion of existential graphs. 2. I really don't see Peirce's use of the word 'symbol' or 'argument' in this selection as meaning the same as is meant in the ten classes of signs. I consider his use here as mere metaphoric rhetoric and not as a semiotic analysis of the Universe. If you read his definitions of these two terms as used within semiosis, you will see that the 'symbol' is an intellectual construct, it refers to "the Object that it denotes by virtue of a law, usually an association of general ideas, which operates to cause the Symbol to be interpreted as referring to that Object" 2.249. And the same thing with the Argument, which is equally an intellectual construct.[see 2.251-3]. Therefore, these two terms refer to human conceptual semiosis and not to physic-chemical or biological semiosis. 3. The problem I have with your approach to these definitions is that they seem purely abstract and theoretical and confined to words; i.e., substituting one set of words for another set of words. I don't know what you see as the function of these terms; you don't seem interested in examining 'what is a perfect sign' within the semiosic universe and how and why does it even exist and operate. And- ; what is the function of a 'quasi-mind' within semiosis. Why and how does it emerge and function? You don't seem involved in this aspect. Edwina On Tue 20/02/18 5:59 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: Edwina, List: Setting aside our different models of semiosis, and simply looking at Peirce's own words ... 1. "Such perfect sign is a quasi-mind. It is the sheet of assertion of Existential Graphs" (EP 2:545n25). Are you prepared to claim that a Rhematic Indexical Legisign is the sheet of assertion of Existential Graphs? If so, then please make your case for that position. If not, then a Rhematic Indexical Legisign cannot be what Peirce meant by "perfect sign." 2. "... the universe is a vast representamen, a great symbol of God's purpose, working out its conclusions in living realities. Now every symbol must have, organically attached to it, its Indices of Reactions and its Icons of Qualities; and such part as these reactions and these qualities play in an argument that, they of course, play in the universe--that Universe being precisely an argument" (CP 5.119, EP 2:193-194; 1903). Since Peirce calls the entire universe a Symbol and an Argument, he obviously did not confine Symbols and Arguments to human conceptual semiosis. Why should we? Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2] On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: list - I think the terms need to be defined, since, apparently, each of us has different definitions of 'sign'; perfect sign' and 'quasi-mind'. Again, my understanding of the Sign is not confined to its function as the Representamen, but to the semiosic process of DO-[IO-R-II]. The Representamen, after all, doesn't exist 'per se' but only within that semiosic process, where the representamen is "a subject of a triadic relation to a second, called its object, for a third, called its interpretant, this triadic relation being such that the representamen determines its interpretant to stand in the same triadic relation to the same object for some interpretant" [1.541]. This relational, dynamic nature must be acknowledged. Therefore, since I am focusing on the triadic semiosic process, then, I consider the 'perfect sign' to be the Rhematic Indexical Legisign', for, in my view, it fulfills all the actions outlined by Peirce : connection to object [indexical]; aging [within the legisign]; and local individualism [within the rhematic local interpretation]. What is the quasi-mind? My understanding is that it is the localization of Mind, emerging within the dialogic semiosic interaction between Utterer and Interpreter and thus - such an interaction would have two quasi-minds. I don't see why this localization of mind, which I see as the quasi-mind, is ALSO a perfect sign.....unless it is that Rhematic Indexical Legisign which is, after all, the basic sign class in the ten classes [includes all three categorical modes]. In addition, this interaction and quasi-mind is not confined to humans but, as Peirce points out, one can have a 'community of quasi-minds' consisting of the chemical liquids in bottles that are 'intricately' connected. [2.392]. Therefore - I don't see Jon AS's view that the quasi-mind [if I remember correctly what he wrote] appears as a Symbol and Argument - which would confine it to human conceptual semiosis. I presume that the above would meet with strong disagreement from some posters - and I think one also has to consider the function of a quasi-mind and a perfect sign. Edwina Links: ------ [1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [3] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
----------------------------- 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 .