Edwina, List: Our deeper differences are resurfacing, so we might want to stop here, before things get contentious again. Briefly ...
- The Sign is not "this full semiosic process," it is one Correlate within the genuine triadic relation that constitutes it. - A Quasi-mind "stores" knowledge as an individual bundle of Collateral Experience and Habits of Interpretation. - Peirce was not defining Form or contrasting it with Matter in CP 4.537; again, I suggest reading (or rereading) NEM 4:292-300, not just EP 2:303-304, to see how he clearly aligned Form with 1ns, Matter with 2ns, and Entelechy with 3ns. Regards, Jon S. On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 1:40 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Jon - - my view is that the IO and II are internal to the FORM that is > involved within the semiosic interaction. BUT - this semiosic process could > not take place without an external stimuli, the DO. That is why I refer to > the FULL semiosic process [which I term the Sign, capital S] as inclusive > of both the internal and external relations. > > Since I consider that this full semiosic process, the full Sign, is > Mind-operating-as-Matter, then, it does store knowledge. There is no > separate domain for such a storage! An insect, as the individual > existential version of its species, is storing the knowledge of How To Be > An Individual Existential Version of that Species...within its actual > existence. > > And since Form must involve Mind, then, I read Peirce as associating it > with 3rdness. My reading of EP 2.303-4 doesn't give me the same conclusion > as you come up with. > > Instead, I understand FORM to be a TYPE, which is in a mode of Thirdness. > "It does not exist; it only determines things that do exist. Such a > definitely significant Form I propose to term a Type. 4.537 > > The Type is understood as operating as a Legisign; ie. within definite > common laws. Habits can hardly be understood as 'vagueness'; therefore, I > don't see how the Form that matter takes can be in a mode of Firstness. > Form, as a general, as a commonality, sets up the laws by which Matter > exists in its state of individuality. > > Edwina > > On Sat 10/02/18 2:03 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: > > Edwina, List: > > I still cannot agree with your definition of the Representamen, nor with > your inclusion of DO and DI within "The FULL Sign." On my reading of > Peirce, only the IO and II are internal to the Sign, while the DO and DI > are external to the Sign. That said, I believe we do agree that there is > no Sign that does not have an external DO, while there are Signs that > have no external DI (or FI). I also cannot see "this FULL SIGN" as "the > site for the storage of knowledge"; again, in my view, that is the > Quasi-mind. > > Regarding Form and Matter, I can only suggest that you read (or reread) > NEM 4:292-300 and EP 2:303-304. In these two passages, Peirce repeatedly > associates Form with 1ns, Matter with 2ns, and Entelechy with 3ns. The one > in NEM is especially detailed and illuminating on this point. > > Thanks, > > Jon S. > > On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 12:31 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 .
