Jerry R., List:

Thanks for your input, which I think has helped the conversation along.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 7:51 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Edwina, list,
>
>
>
> What I see you doing in your last post is giving reasons for valuing
> quiddity for Mind in triadic relation.
>
>
>
> What I also see you doing is giving reasons to avoid valuing hecceity in
> Quasi-mind contra Mind.
>
>
>
> So long as you do the former (valuation for quiddity) and divest yourself
> of paying attention to the latter (valuation for hecceity), I find it
> unsurprising that you find it *‘not a fast-rule’ that the individual mind
> is described as a ‘quasi-mind’*.
>
>
>
> For "I persuade myself" is a phrase that suggests a state which is immune
> to outside tampering.
>
>
>
> All the best,
> Jerry R
>
> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 7:30 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> Jerry - I don't see that the individual mind is necessarily referenced as
>> 'quasi-mind.
>>
>> "A sign is in s conjoint relation to the thing denoted and to the mind'.
>> 3.360
>>
>> "But if the triple relation between the sign, its object and the
>> mind'...3.361
>>
>> and he refers to "the mind using the sign' 3.361.
>>
>> [NOTE: by 'sign' I understand the mediate term in the triad, the
>> representamen].
>>
>> And in 8.315, he references "No event that occurs to any mind, no action
>> of any mind'...etc.
>>
>> My point is that it is not a 'fast rule' that the individual mind is
>> described as a 'quasi-mind'. Peirce uses the term 'mind' to refer to
>> individual's and their mental interactions with the world. He rarely uses
>> the term 'quasi-mind'...and more often then, to refer to non-human actions
>> of 'mind'
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>> On Fri 09/02/18 5:06 PM , Jerry Rhee jerryr...@gmail.com sent:
>>
>> Edwina list,
>>
>>
>>
>> As per your objection,
>>
>> “I would prefer to somehow imply/read that individual mind/quasi-mind is
>> an aspect of Mind.  I just get 'antsy' about the term 'subset'.”
>>
>>
>>
>> Here are a few quotes from Peirce that address why individual
>> mind/quasi-mind is an aspect of Mind (but this concept is not Peirce's
>> alone.  It belongs to the river of pragmaticism.):
>>
>>
>>
>> Few persons care to study logic, because everybody conceives himself to
>> be proficient enough in the art of reasoning already. But I observe that
>> this satisfaction is limited to one's own ratiocination, and does not
>> extend to that of other men.
>>
>>
>>
>> ..and the Communicational Interpretant, or say the Cominterpretant,
>> which is a determination of that mind into which the minds of utterer and
>> interpreter have to be fused in order that any communication should take
>> place. This mind may be called the commens. It consists of all that is,
>> and must be, well understood between utterer and interpreter, at the
>> outset, in order that the sign in question should fulfill its function.
>>
>>
>>
>> I take “have to be fused” as “must be fused” in order than any
>> communication should take place.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hth,
>>
>> Jerry R
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:59 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Edwina,
>>>
>>> I think what is meant by 'subset' is that your conception of things
>>> contributes to the overall conception of things.  But there is also the
>>> possibility that what you contribute are the good and right things and you
>>> are supposed to let go of the things that are not good and/or right.
>>>
>>> Another way to ask this is, if Peirce makes a distinction between
>>> quasi-mind and Mind, and you see no reason for valuing the difference in
>>> the two things placed next to one another, then what is the reason for
>>> Peirce bringing attention to the distinction?
>>> That is, why even make up a word like quasi-mind when Mind will do?  So,
>>> what is the reason that the distinction even necessary or should we just
>>> say, 'forget it', it's not even necessary.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Jerry R
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jerry- yes, Peirce was quite specific that one cannot make individuals
>>>> judges of truth...and that we function within a 'community'...and I
>>>> certainly agree with that. I would prefer to somehow imply/read that
>>>> individual mind/quasi-mind is an aspect of Mind.  I just get 'antsy'
>>>> about the term 'subset'.
>>>>
>>>> Edwina
>>>>
>>>> On Fri 09/02/18 4:47 PM , Jerry Rhee jerryr...@gmail.com sent:
>>>>
>>>> Edwina, list,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here is a reason for difference between Mind and Quasi-Mind:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When we come to the great principle of continuity and see how all is
>>>> fluid and every point directly partakes the being of every other, it will
>>>> appear that individualism and falsity are one and the same.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Meantime, we know that man is not whole as long as he is single, that
>>>> he is essentially a possible member of society.  Especially, one man’s
>>>> experience is nothing if it stands alone.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If he sees what others cannot, we call it hallucination.  It is not
>>>> ‘my’ experience but ‘our’ experience that has to be thought of; and this
>>>> ‘us’ has indefinite possibilities..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Neither must we understand the practical in any low and sordid sense.
>>>> Individual action is a means and not our end.  Individual pleasure is not
>>>> our end; we are all putting our shoulders to the wheel for an end that none
>>>> of us can catch more than a glimpse at- that which the generations are
>>>> working out.  But we can see that the development of embodied ideas is what
>>>> it will consist in.-
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Jerry R
>>>>
>>>>
-----------------------------
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 .




Reply via email to