Jon, Your collection of Peirce quotes deploying the term “quasi-mind” (if each is taken in context) seemed to me quite enough to clarify what the term signifies — so I haven’t followed your additional explanation very closely, as it seemed to me redundant. But I think it may also be misleading in a couple of ways.
First, you seem to be developing a concept of “quasi-mind” which makes it more specific than “mind,” as if it has some special qualities that other kinds of “mind” don’t have. I think this is a mistake, because in Peirce’s usage, “quasi-mind” is a broader, more general term than “mind.” He was directing attention to something that has mindlike qualities but not necessarily all those qualities or functions which we habitually associate with “mind,” and not necessarily only those qualities or functions. For instance, a human mind is one kind of quasi-mind, not the other way round. Second, Peirce says (EP2:545) that “Such perfect sign is a quasi-mind,” but you seem to be interpreting this as if it said that every quasi-mind is a perfect sign. I don’t see any warrant for that. Pardon me if I’ve misread you, but if so, at least you know that such misreadings are possible! Gary f. From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: 18-Feb-18 20:41 To: email@example.com Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Quasi-mind List: Having received no corrections or objections to my summary of the relevant Peirce quotes, I would like to offer some further comments. In these contexts, at least, Quasi-minds are clearly indispensable to Sign-action. In fact, there must be at least two Quasi-minds (#4-5) involved, such that the Sign serves as a medium for communication of a Form between them (#6), "welding" them such that they are at one in the Sign itself. Hence the term "Sign" here evidently refers to what Peirce elsewhere called a genuine Sign--one that requires Quasi-minds serving as both utterer and interpreter, which may be past and future versions of the same Quasi-mind. By contrast, a natural (or degenerate) Sign does not require a Quasi-mind to utter it, just a Dynamic Object to determine it. The Dynamic Object does this only in the particular respect that enables the (genuine or natural) Sign to act upon the second Quasi-mind as if the Dynamic Object itself were acting upon it (#7). I take this "respect" to be the Immediate Object, the partial combination of attributes of the Dynamic Object by which the Sign denotes it. Thus "deputized" by its Object, the Sign determines the second Quasi-mind to produce a feeling, exertion (action), or other Sign (thought) as its Dynamic Interpretant (#8), which is a singular event (#3). The Sign is best regarded as this very determination of the interpreting Quasi-mind, rather than as an Object that addresses itself to that Quasi-mind (#9). So what is a Quasi-mind? My last tentative definition called it a bundle of Collateral Experience and Habits of Interpretation (i.e., reacting substance) that retains the capacity for Habit-change (i.e., learning by experience), and thus can be the Quasi-utterer of a genuine Sign (since this requires a purpose) and the Quasi-interpreter of any Sign. I still think that this is close to the mark, but can now clarify that a Quasi-mind is a Sign that constitutes an aggregate or complex of all previous Signs that have determined it, which are so connected together as to produce one Interpretant (#1). As such, a Quasi-mind includes the Immediate Objects of all those previous Signs, which serve as its Collateral Experience, as well as their Final Interpretants, which serve as its Habits of Interpretation. I also still believe that the capacity for Habit-change is what distinguishes a Quasi-mind from a brute Thing--a strictly material reacting substance whose Habits of Interpretation have become inveterate ("matter as effete mind," CP 6.25; 1891). I was previously leaning toward also requiring a Quasi-mind to be a center of consciousness (i.e., unity of feeling), based primarily on the following passage, as expounded in a recent book chapter by Vincent Colapietro ("Habits, Awareness, and Autonomy," in Donna E. West and Myrdene Anderson, Eds., Consensus on Peirce's Concept of Habit, pp. 297-313). CSP: Of course, each personality is based upon a "bundle of habits," as the saying is that a man is a bundle of habits. But a bundle of habits would not have the unity of self-consciousness. That unity must be given as a centre for the habits. The brain shows no central cell. The unity of consciousness is therefore not of physiological origin. It can only be metaphysical. So far as feelings have any continuity, it is the metaphysical nature of feeling to have a unity. (CP 6.228-229; 1898) However, I now realize--since Peirce explicitly stated that consciousness is not logically necessary for a Quasi-mind (#2)--that this is instead what distinguishes a person (or personality, or human Mind) from a "mere" Quasi-mind. Furthermore, it is what makes self-control possible, as opposed to the "uncontrolled inferences" of non-human animals (cf. CP 7.444-446; c. 1893). In other words, all Quasi-minds are capable of Habit-change when Sign-actions in the Outer World produce a new Final Interpretant that supplements or replaces its previous Habits of Interpretation; but only persons are capable of self-controlled Habit-change by means of purposeful Sign-actions in the Inner World (cf. CP 4.157, c. 1897; EP 2:412-413, 1907; CP 5.493, EP 2:418-419, 1907; EP 2:431, 1907; EP 2:549-550n49, 1907). Conveniently, most of these citations come from "Pragmatism," so I continue to look forward to Gary R.'s planned List discussion of those manuscripts. As for the Existential Graphs, I believe that everything above is consistent with recognizing the sheet of assertion or Phemic Sheet as the Quasi-mind (aggregate or complex) of all Signs scribed upon it, in which the Graphist (utterer) and Intepreter are at one (#10), and a Dicisign of all that is tacitly taken for granted between them (#11)--i.e., the overlap of their Collateral Experience and Habits of Interpretation that makes their communication possible. Regards, Jon S. On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 12:00 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com <mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > wrote: List: Still attempting to avoid any interpretive commentary just yet, here is what those quotes tell us about Quasi-minds, in their likely order of composition. * EP 2:389 - Every Sign, or nearly every Sign, is a determination of a Quasi-mind. * EP 2:391 - The Object determines the Sign only in the respect that enables the Sign to act upon the interpreting Quasi-mind as if the Object itself were acting upon it. * EP 2:391 - A Sign is best regarded as a determination of a Quasi-mind, rather than as an outward object that addresses itself to a Quasi-mind. * EP 2:544n22 - A Sign is a medium for communication of a Form among at least two (if not three) Quasi-minds. * EP 2:544n22 - Quasi-minds are things capable of varied determination as to Forms of the kind communicated, but it is not logically necessary that they possess consciousness. * EP 2:545n25 - A Quasi-mind is a perfect Sign, the aggregate formed by a Sign and all the Signs which its occurrence carries with it. * EP 2:545n25 - A Quasi-mind is the sheet of assertion of Existential Graphs. * EP 2:545n25 - A Quasi-mind is, like anything else, susceptible to determination in a certain way; and each such determination is an event occurring once for all and never again. * SS 195 - Every Sign must be a determination of a Quasi-mind, which is itself a determinable Sign, even if that Quasi-mind is one's future self. * CP 4.536 - A Sign produces an Interpretant in the Quasi-mind that is its interpreter by determining the latter to a feeling, exertion, or Sign. * CP 4.550 - Whatever represents The Truth in our Diagram must be regarded as the Quasi-mind of all the Signs represented on it. * CP 4.550 - Signs so connected that a complex of two of them can have one Interpretant are the determinations of one Sign, which is a Quasi-mind. * CP 4.551 - Connected Signs must have a Quasi-mind, and there are no isolated Signs. * CP 4.551 - Every Sign requires at least two distinct Quasi-minds, a Quasi-utterer and a Quasi-interpreter, which are at one (welded) in the Sign itself. * CP 4.553 - The Phemic Sheet is the Quasi-mind, which is determined by the Graph-instances scribed on it, and in which the Graphist and Interpreter are at one. * CP 4.553 - This Quasi-mind is a Seme of The Truth, the widest Universe of Reality, and a Pheme of all that is tacitly taken for granted between the Graphist and Interpreter. Peirce wrote all of these passages during the early months of 1906--the EP manuscripts in January, the SS letter in March, and the CP article in May (published in October). Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that they are mutually consistent, and attempt to ascertain his concept of a Quasi-mind accordingly. Combining and rearranging the information above--and thus finally injecting a little bit of interpretation on my part--yields the following condensed version. 1. A Quasi-mind is a perfect Sign, the aggregate or complex of all Signs that have previously determined it, which are so connected that they can have one Interpretant. 2. A Quasi-mind is a determinable Sign, capable of varied determination as to Forms of the kind communicated by a Sign, but not necessarily conscious. 3. Every such determination of a Quasi-mind is an event that occurs once for all and never again. 4. A Sign cannot be isolated, but is always connected to other Signs, and thus must have a Quasi-mind. 5. A Sign in fact requires at least two distinct Quasi-minds, its utterer and its interpreter, which are at one (welded) in the Sign itself. 6. A Sign is a medium for communication of a Form between these Quasi-minds, which may be past and future versions of the same Quasi-mind. 7. A Sign is determined by its Object only in the respect that enables it to act upon a Quasi-mind (its interpreter) as if the Object itself were acting upon that Quasi-mind. 8. A Sign is the determination of a Quasi-mind (its interpreter) to produce a feeling, exertion, or other Sign as its Interpretant. 9. A Sign is best regarded as this determination of a Quasi-mind (its interpreter), rather than as an outward Object that addresses itself to that Quasi-mind. 10. For Existential Graphs, the sheet of assertion or Phemic Sheet that represents The Truth is the Quasi-mind of all Signs scribed on it, in which the Graphist and Interpreter are at one. 11. This Quasi-mind is a Seme [Rheme] of the widest Universe of Reality, and a Pheme [Dicisign] of all that is tacitly taken for granted between the Graphist and Interpreter. Does anything here seem incongruent with the original quotes, or have I accurately summarized them? Thanks, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt <http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt>
----------------------------- 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 .