> On Mar 28, 2017, at 5:50 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> I agree - there isn't a Mind. And yes, 'semiosis itself is determinative of 
> mind' - though I would also say that mind, understood not as A Mind, but as 
> the process of Being Mind determines 
> semiosis-which-determines-Mind-which...and so on.
> 
Definitely agree although ultimately it’s just signs which is mind.

> My focus in Peircean semiosis is the process. I find that a lot of attention 
> on this list seems to focus on specific and particular definitions of terms - 
> and I have to say, I'm not terribly interested in that area

In this case I think there are some important philosophical issues that beset 
much of 20th century philosophy at play. Just thinking through my frustration 
at saying the right thing due to ambiguities in most terms perhaps makes me a 
little more focused on the language. It’s not so much that I care about the 
definitions as such since to me they’re more descriptions than definitions. But 
there are some subtle distinctions that are difficult to make yet end up 
counting for a lot.

I recognize though that you find the applied issues more interesting than the 
philosophical ones. I find both interesting myself, although my background is 
much more the philosophical side of things. 
>  It seems to me at least, mechanical and static.  I'm interested in the 
> process of transforming one morphological form of matter/concept into another 
> morphological form - which is done by semiosis. So, the process of 
> transforming one cell to another cell; the process of transforming 
> information of a Dynamic Object to a Dynamic Interpretant - which 
> Interpretant can also function as a Dynamic Object for another Dynamic 
> Interpretant and as well, transform into the habits-of-form that are vested 
> within the Representamen.  Those are the areas where I feel Peircean semiosis 
> has a LOT to say.
> 
Well I’m not sure I’d say static and definitely not mechanical. But how things 
transform is interesting as well.
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .




Reply via email to