Is this an effort to agree on something that exists and is real, or to design something, or to identify what Peirce thought. If it exists then there can only be one right interpretation. If is it a matter of coming to an agreement with each other well and good. If it has to do with what Peirce thought and there is no agreement, to what might that be ascribed -- a communication problem or that Peirce was not clear, or something else?
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Jon, list > > I don't see the Representamen as the individual site for storage. That > would make it 'existential' in itself. I see it as a site for a mediation > process that accesses knowledge/information and inputs it/uses it...to deal > with the information provided from the DO/IO. > > The FULL Sign of DO-[IO-R-II]-DI is the existential FORM of Matter and > thus, as this FULL SIGN is the site for the storage of knowledge. That is, > a molecule, as itself, as a form of matter, stores information. That same > molecule is functioning within a full Sign format: DO-[IO-R-II]-DI. It is > in interaction with other molecules [DO] and forms its own nature [DI] > which will interact as a DO with other molecules. > > However, I do not agree that Form is 1stness; I maintain that Form is > Thirdness. Firstness functions within vagueness and possibility. > > Edwina > > > > > > > > On Sat 10/02/18 1:07 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: > > Edwina, List: > > Well, I still see the Quasi-mind as "the [individual] site for storage," > rather than the Sign/Representamen. However, I do see the latter as the > means "for the introduction of novelty and diversity," since it always adds > new Collateral Experience to a particular Quasi-mind as its Immediate > Object, and also always has the potential for adding a new Habit of > Interpretation to it as its Final Interpretant. > > We might also still disagree about exactly how form and matter come into > play. In accordance with NEM 4:292-300 (1902) and EP 2:303-304 (1904), I > see Signs as bringing about the entelechy of Being (3ns, "the perfect > Truth, the absolute Truth ... the ultimate interpretant of every sign") > by uniting Form (1ns, "signifies characters, or qualities") and Matter > (2ns, "denoting objects"); i.e., "the attribution of a predicate to a > subject" (CP 6.341; 1909). This is another way of expressing the telos of > all Sign-action, the summum bonum, which is "the ultimate > representation" (EP 2:324; 1904). > > Regards, > > Jon S. > > On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > >> Jon - OK - I have no problem with your outline. >> >> I'd also say that a Sign [which I understand as the full set of >> DO-[IO-R-II]...serves not only as the site for storage but also for the >> introduction of novelty and diversity. Novelty can be introduced at various >> stages: at the IO, the II, the DI...and this would be taken up by the R in >> the next individual. >> >> I'd also say that this Sign serves as the FORM of matter; i.e., not >> merely for communication between individuals, but as the actual method of >> forming matter. >> >> Otherwise - I'd say that our views are becoming, unbelievably, more in >> line with each other! >> >> Edwina >> >> On Sat 10/02/18 11:18 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com >> sent: >> >> Edwina, List: >> >> Given how Peirce used the term "Quasi-mind" in CP 4.551, I take it to be >> inclusive of both symbolic and non-symbolic thought, rather than limited >> to the latter. It is most easily understood as a substitute for a human >> mind, >> but also applies to bees, crystals, etc. Each individual Quasi-mind >> serves as a "site" for "storage" of an "accumulated knowledge base" that >> includes acquaintance with various systems of Signs, Collateral Experience >> (previous Immediate Objects), and Habits of Interpretation (previous Final >> Interpretants). A Sign serves as a medium for communication of ideas/forms >> between individual Quasi-minds, and successful Sign-action--which can only >> take place within the Commens, where multiple Quasi-minds overlap--"welds" >> them together in the Sign. Every Sign adds to a Quasi-mind's Collateral >> Experience, and some Signs produce Final Interpretants that constitute >> Habit-change--i.e., learning from experience--when they supplement or >> alter the Quasi-mind's Habits of Interpretation. The telos of this >> process is the summum bonum--the "welding" of all Quasi-minds into a >> continuum. >> >> At least, that is how I see it right now. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> >> On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >> wrote: >> >>> Jon, list - I like your outline of a syllogistic format - I consider >>> that the semiosic triad of DO-[IO-R-II]..and possibly DI functions in a >>> syllogistic format. >>> >>> But with regard to the Mind/Quasi-Mind discussion, I consider that Mind >>> can be understood as the Real, while the individual articulation of this >>> Mind is its spatiotemporal Existence. We might sometimes refer to the >>> individual articulation of the Reality of Mind as 'Quasi-Mind', but to me >>> at least, that phrase suggests a non-symbolic version of thinking, as in a >>> paramecium, rather than the individual existential articulation of the >>> Reality of Mind. >>> >>> As for the accumulated knowledge base - that's held in the laws of Form, >>> so to speak. Within physic-chemical laws, within genetics, and socially, >>> within cultural rules and norms which are passed down to the next >>> generation by socialization. Peirce described its Storage method as >>> Thirdness and it is interesting that he has three types of Thirdness - from >>> the most abstract idealism to the collectivism of an indexical binding and >>> an emotional cloning of this knowledge. >>> >>> Edwina >>> >>> On Sat 10/02/18 9:15 AM , Jon Awbrey jawb...@att.net sent: >>> >>> Peircers, >>> >>> There's a bit on the role of accumulated knowledge bases in >>> inquiry, learning, and reasoning in the following section: >>> >>> Introduction to Inquiry Driven Systems • Learning, Transfer, Testing >>> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Introduction_to_In >>> quiry_Driven_Systems#Inquiry >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Jon >>> >>> -- >>> >>> inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ >>> academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey >>> oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey >>> isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA >>> facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache >>> >>> >> > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
