Dear Discussants:

As a lurking observer, I wish to thank everyone who contributed to this
discussion for helping to explain a very difficult concept. I can't say I
understand it all yet, but you have certainly helped a great deal in
increasing understanding.
Thanks to everyone who offered their views and arguments.


*Ben Novak*
5129 Taylor Drive, Ave Maria, FL 34142
Telephone: (814) 808-5702
Mobile: (814) 424-8501

*"All art is mortal, **not merely the individual artifacts, but the arts
themselves.* *One day the last portrait of Rembrandt* *and the last bar of
Mozart will have ceased to be—**though possibly a colored canvas and a
sheet of notes may remain—**because the last eye and the last ear
accessible to their message **will have gone." *Oswald Spengler

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 9:44 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------
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