BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}list - I have hesitated to get into this thread because I don't want
to get into yet another interminable debate over terms - but - I do
have a few concerns about the definition of a quasi-mind and of a
perfect sign.

        1] I understand a quasi-mind as emerging within a local semiosic
interaction  between at least two if nor more agents - and it can
most certainly be found in non-human and indeed, material agents.  As
Peirce said, "Let a community of quasi-minds consist of the liquid in
a number of bottle which are in intricate connexion by tubes filled
with the liquid. this liquid is of complex and somewhat unstable
mixed chemical composition. It also has to strong a cohesion and
consequent surface-tension that the contents of each bottle take on a
self-determined form'...EP; 392. 

        That is - a quasi-mind, in my view, is the specific local mental
action that emerges within the semiosic interaction- and since Mind
functions in all material spheres, from the physic-chemical to the
biological to the human conceptual - then, the quasi-mind must emerge
in all these realms.

        So, I see the quasi-mind as the existential, local operation of

        2] As for the 'perfect sign' - I see it as  one particular class of
signs: a Rhematic Indexical Legisign - an individual interpretation
of local stimuli as referenced to a general rule.

        This is, as Peirce points out in EP 545#25, a semiosic action that
is rule based but NOT-static; i.e., has the capacity for adaptive
growth of knowledge as a Legisign; it is 'perpetually being acted
upon by its object' [that's the indexicality]; it brings 'fresh
energy [that is its rhematic nature] 
 On Mon 19/02/18  9:04 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt
 Gary F., List:
 I agree that "'quasi-mind' is a broader, more general term than
'mind,'" and that "a human mind is one kind of quasi-mind, not the
other way round."  Where do you see me suggesting otherwise?
 My reading of EP 2:545n25, taken as a whole, is that "perfect Sign"
and "Quasi-mind" are synonyms.
 Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran [1] - [2] 
 On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 6:47 AM,   wrote:

        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. 

PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at .

Reply via email to