Jeff, List: I agree that Peirce was predominantly discussing "perfect Signs" and "Quasi-minds" within the framework of a normative theory of logic as semeiotic; that "perfect" is related to Entelechy in this context (as I just posted); and that "Quasi-mind" is a generalization of *human *minds, the kind with which we are most familiar. Again, I think one key difference is that a *person *(or personality) has a center of consciousness, but Peirce clearly stated that this is not *logically *necessary for a Quasi-mind. I remain strongly interested in learning how you think we can explicate "determination" in a more perspicuous way than "mediation," "representation," "signification," etc.; could you please elaborate on that?
Thanks, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard < [email protected]> wrote: > Gary F., Jon S., Jon A., List > > The conceptions of a perfect sign and of a quasi-mind appear, on the face > of things, to be introduced as technical notions for theoretical purposes. > Peirce points out that there are several different perspectives that one > could adopt in trying to explain the character of sign or of a mind, > including a logical perspective, as well as a metaphysical, or > a psychological, a physiological, or a systems theoretic perspective, etc. > > What point of view is Peirce adopting when he develops the conceptions of > a perfect sign and of a quasi-mind? The answer, I assume, is that he is > developing these conceptions, first and foremost, within the framework of a > normative theory of logic and semiotics. > > Focusing on the conception of a perfect sign, how might we interpret the > following passages in light of the competing readings that Jon S and Gary F > are offering? > > All thinking is dialogic in form. Your self of one instant appeals to your > deeper > self for his assent. Consequently, all thinking is conducted in signs that > are mainly of the same general structure as words; those which are not > so, being of the nature of those signs of which we have need now and then > in our converse with one another to eke out the defects of words, or *symbols. > *[CP 6.338] > > And then, a few paragraphs later, he adds: > > The mode of being of the composition of thought, which is always of the nature > of the attribution of a predicate to a subject, is the living intelligence > which is the creator of all intelligible reality, as well as of the > knowledge of such reality. It is the entelechy, or perfection of being. > [CP 6.341] > As Peirce says elsewhere, the composition of thought is a species of the > composition of relations generally. What is more, the potency in the > composition of thoroughly genuine triadic relations springs from the > *mediation* of the relation between the object and the interpretant by > the sign. > > For my part, I think Peirce defines signs the way he does because he is > setting up an explanatory strategy where the fairly generic and relatively > simple relation of "*A determines B*" is being offered as part of the > *explanans* of relations having greater potency, including mediation, > representation, signification, and thought--which are the target > *explanadum* in these parts of the theories of logic and semiotics. It is > the potency of being further interpreted and thereby growing--without end, > as it were--that I take to constitute the perfection (or perfectibility) of > signs that have the character of, say, symbolic arguments. > > The introduction of the conception of a quasi-mind is, I take it, a > generalization from the sorts of thinking minds with which we are most > familiar, so that this broader concept might cover the mind-like > activities that do not manifest the the higher forms of self-controlled > conduct and thought that are the primary phenomena for a normative > theory--but where the patterns of thought might evolve and grow in > relatively instinctive and experientially informed ways. > > --Jeff >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
