Edwina, List: 1. It seems like we both struggle, although in different ways, with talking about Signs as individual "things"--like "a stone on a sandy beach," or "an organism" trying to survive--vs. talking about Signs within a continuous process. That is why I find your tendency to use the term "Sign" for the entire interaction of DO-[IO-R-II] problematic, and why I hoped that when we jointly recognized the *internal *triad of [IO-R-II] some months ago, we would thereafter conscientiously call *this *(and *only *this) the Sign, while always acknowledging that there is no Sign *without *a DO.
2. As I noted in my own reply to Gary, I instead view the DI of the child (the utterer) as an *external Sign* for the mother (the interpreter), and its DO is still the hot burner. 3. Your mind is indeed an individual manifestation of Mind; but again, I suspect that Peirce used "Quasi-mind" to accommodate cases that most people would not normally associate with "mind." 4. If to you "Form has [parameters] and laws and continuity," then you are not referring to the same thing that Peirce called "Form" when he contrasted it with Matter in NEM 4:292-300 and EP 2:303-304. 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 6:52 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Gary R, list > > Thanks for your comments. > > 1] Yes, my point is that there is no such thing as an isolate sign. Even a > stone on a sandy beach is in interaction. It is Mind-as-Matter, and this > matter/mind is in interaction with the heat of the sun, with the cooling of > the night, with the water, with other stones. Any exisistence, i.e., a sign > unit MUST be in interaction or...it disappears. > > That's why I write the full semiosic action, which is a Sign [capital S] > as: DO-[IO-R-II]. AND - if this basic interaction does not move into a DI, > then, I'd wonder how long such an organism could survive. That is, > biologically, if the food input is not transformed into muscle and fat > [understood as the DI]...or if the child when told to pick up the > book...simply sits and stares in a catatonic state... > > So- yes, the DI is indeed a vital bridge to further semiosis. > > 2] Agreed, the child's DI, a cry of pain, becomes a DO for the mother, who > reacts to this DO ... > > 3] I'm having trouble with the quasi-mind. I don't get it. Perhaps it's > ego. Why isn't my mind - just an individual existence of Mind? > > 4] And I'm having trouble seeing Form as a mode of Firstness. Since, to > me, Form has perimeters and laws and continuity, it is therefore an > integral property of Mind - and I can see it only in a mode of Thirdness. > > Now, whether these Forms are FIRST in operation in the universe, i.e., as > in a Platonic Universe, followed, Second, by their materialization - is > quite another debate and such an order has nothing to do with the three > modal Categories. > > Edwina >
----------------------------- 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 .
