BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Jon, list
1. I see no reason why a rhematic indexical legisign, with its
qualities that fit all of Peirce's stated description of a 'perfect
sign' cannot fulfill being a 'sheet of assertion of existential
graphs.
2. I really don't see Peirce's use of the word 'symbol' or
'argument' in this selection as meaning the same as is meant in the
ten classes of signs. I consider his use here as mere metaphoric
rhetoric and not as a semiotic analysis of the Universe.
If you read his definitions of these two terms as used within
semiosis, you will see that the 'symbol' is an intellectual
construct, it refers to "the Object that it denotes by virtue of a
law, usually an association of general ideas, which operates to cause
the Symbol to be interpreted as referring to that Object" 2.249.
And the same thing with the Argument, which is equally an
intellectual construct.[see 2.251-3].
Therefore, these two terms refer to human conceptual semiosis and
not to physic-chemical or biological semiosis.
3. The problem I have with your approach to these definitions is
that they seem purely abstract and theoretical and confined to words;
i.e., substituting one set of words for another set of words.
I don't know what you see as the function of these terms; you don't
seem interested in examining 'what is a perfect sign' within the
semiosic universe and how and why does it even exist and operate.
And- ; what is the function of a 'quasi-mind' within semiosis. Why
and how does it emerge and function? You don't seem involved in this
aspect.
Edwina
On Tue 20/02/18 5:59 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
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, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Edwina Taborsky 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
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
