Dear Jerry,
you wrote that we have had experiences. I dont remember them so well. In any case, it is not so, that I would see you representing a certain way of thinking I would categorically oppose. I cannot put you into a drawer. But I dont want to put people into drawers anyway. Some things you
Gary R., List:
I honestly did try to pause at a couple of points--after posting the
initial list of quotes, and then after posting my own summaries of them--to
give others a chance to comment, but my eagerness to put my ideas out there
and get feedback on them eventually got the best of me. I agr
Nice response -- here's mine
Do not pretend to know my name
The words I use are weak and lame
They cannot tell from whence they came
They don’t pretend to know my name
+
There is no reason to say more
I do not know what this is for
There is no why there’s no wherefore
Why is there reason t
Dear Helmut,
You said,
All that is a reflection in another mirror, a bit further away. Solipsism
is assuming an endless series of mirrors behind mirrors. Sounds like hell.
Can you show a way out..
I would presume based on our past experiences that you wouldn’t care for me
to show you a way o
Jerry,
when a mirror appears in the field of sight, then the eye can see itself. Its owner may ask him/herself: What is behind that mirror? But the mirror is there, so behind it is also what is behind the eye. But the world too. So it is the (eye-owner´s) world, and the owner of the world, being
Jon S, Gary f, Jeff, Edwina, list,
Jon, I'm entering this discussion rather late for reasons I offered last
week, for at least that reason I'm finding it difficult to find a 'place'
to enter it. For me your hypothesis regarding quasi-Mind is not yet
confirmed but is quite interesting and well-wort
Dear list,
Speaking of the person who sees the vase, who happens to be a Quasi-mind:
*5.6 *
*The limits of my language** mean the limits of my world.*
*5.61*
Logic fills the world: the limits of the world are also its limits.
We cannot therefore say in logic: This and this ther
Edwina, List:
1. A hypothesis is not intended to be an argument. However, your point
about providing multiple terms for the same concept is well-taken. With
that in mind, I now see *three *interpretive possibilities for Peirce's
statement, "Such perfect sign is a quasi-mind. It is the sheet of
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Jon -
1. All I can say is that your definitions are circular. You repeat
that 'a perfect mind= a quasi-mind= the sheet of assertion of the EG.
This, frankly, is not an argument; it is not enlightening; it doesn
Edwina, List:
1. We can say two things for sure based on that straightforward pair of
sentences by Peirce--first, that a perfect Sign, whatever else it might be,
is a Quasi-mind; and second, that the Sheet of Assertion of Existential
Graphs is a perfect Sign. We also know, from various other quo
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Jon -
1]You are the one who is 'asserting' Peirce's sentence: " Such
perfect sign is a quasi-mind. It is the sheet of assertion of
Existential Graphs" (EP 2:545n25).
So- you should be the one explainin
Helmut, List:
I agree with Jeff that "perfect" in this context does not have a Platonic
meaning, but rather--as I have stated previously--is related to the
Aristotelian notion of Entelechy. In fact, here is another passage that *might
*provide more clues about what Peirce meant by a "perfect Sign
Edwina, List:
The only obvious contradiction that I see in your summary is between these
two claims.
ET: the Quasi-Mind is a bundle of habits capable of habit change by
experience [Note: this rules out Firstness in this situation]
ET: Form = 1stness
Why would my concept of Quasi-mind "rule ou
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Jon - just a few of my concerns about your definitions - but - I'm
not going to get into another endless debate. I'm sure you'll respond
- but - we'll have to leave it with that.
You have informed us, in this t
Edwina, List:
I understand your hesitancy, and appreciate your willingness to offer some
comments.
1. Not surprisingly, your analysis makes sense within your model of
semiosis, in which a "Sign" is an (inter)action; but not within mine, in
which a "Sign" is one of three Correlates in a triadic r
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}list - I have hesitated to get into this thread because I don't want
to get into yet another interminable debate over terms - but - I do
have a few concerns about the definition of a quasi-mind and of a
perfect sign.
I have never in any forum seen more quibbling over terms which either
cannot be clarified or need not be clarified. I think this is not great for
this forum. I see little here that convinces me that what is truly
revolutionary in Peirce -- his convincing attacks on nominalism and
dualism, the thin
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
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}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 understand
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
in
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
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}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 con
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}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
inter
23 matches
Mail list logo
