Edwina, List: Setting aside our different models of semiosis, and simply looking at Peirce's own words ...
1. "Such perfect sign is a quasi-mind. It is the sheet of assertion of Existential Graphs" (EP 2:545n25). Are you prepared to claim that a Rhematic Indexical Legisign is the sheet of assertion of Existential Graphs? If so, then please make your case for that position. If not, then a Rhematic Indexical Legisign *cannot *be what Peirce meant by "perfect sign." 2. "... the universe is a vast representamen, a great symbol of God's purpose, working out its conclusions in living realities. Now every symbol must have, organically attached to it, its Indices of Reactions and its Icons of Qualities; and such part as these reactions and these qualities play in an argument that, they of course, play in the universe--that Universe being precisely an argument" (CP 5.119, EP 2:193-194; 1903). Since Peirce calls *the entire universe* a Symbol and an Argument, he obviously *did not* confine Symbols and Arguments to human conceptual semiosis. Why should we? Regards, 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 2:27 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > list - > > I think the terms need to be defined, since, apparently, each of us has > different definitions of 'sign'; perfect sign' and 'quasi-mind'. > > Again, my understanding of the Sign is not confined to its function as the > Representamen, but to the semiosic process of DO-[IO-R-II]. The > Representamen, after all, doesn't exist 'per se' but only within that > semiosic process, where the representamen is "a subject of a triadic > relation to a second, called its object, for a third, called its > interpretant, this triadic relation being such that the representamen > determines its interpretant to stand in the same triadic relation to the > same object for some interpretant" [1.541]. This relational, dynamic nature > must be acknowledged. > > Therefore, since I am focusing on the triadic semiosic process, then, I > consider the 'perfect sign' to be the Rhematic Indexical Legisign', for, in > my view, it fulfills all the actions outlined by Peirce : connection to > object [indexical]; aging [within the legisign]; and local individualism > [within the rhematic local interpretation]. > > What is the quasi-mind? My understanding is that it is the localization of > Mind, emerging within the dialogic semiosic interaction between Utterer and > Interpreter and thus - such an interaction would have two quasi-minds. I > don't see why this localization of mind, which I see as the quasi-mind, is > ALSO a perfect sign.....unless it is that Rhematic Indexical Legisign which > is, after all, the basic sign class in the ten classes [includes all three > categorical modes]. > > In addition, this interaction and quasi-mind is not confined to humans > but, as Peirce points out, one can have a 'community of quasi-minds' > consisting of the chemical liquids in bottles that are 'intricately' > connected. [2.392]. Therefore - I don't see Jon AS's view that the > quasi-mind [if I remember correctly what he wrote] appears as a Symbol and > Argument - which would confine it to human conceptual semiosis. > > I presume that the above would meet with strong disagreement from some > posters - and I think one also has to consider the function of a quasi-mind > and a perfect sign. > > 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 [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 .
