BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, list
Yes - I think - but can't be positive - that this is my post - from
many, many months ago. ...a year or so? I don't recall. The first
sentence puzzles me as to why I was referring to three quasi-minds.
But- since it is such an old post, and I don't keep them - then I
can't recall the context. But how it emerged as a post from Dec 4/18
- I've no idea.
Edwina
On Wed 05/12/18 12:24 AM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
Mike, Edwina, list,
Yes, this is quite peculiar and Ben Udell and I will most certainly
look into it.
But first, to help clarify matters: Edwina, do you indeed disavow
this post? You wrote that you haven't posted for some time so that
Mike quite naturally took this to mean that this wasn't your post.
But is it something you may have drafted or posted earlier? If indeed
it is not your post, this is a serious matter which we'll take up with
IUPUI staff immediately.
Mike, thanks for bringing this so emphatically to our attention. I
would suggest that list members not continue in this thread until
we've been able to discover what is going on here.
Best,
Gary (writing as list moderator)
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York 718 482-5690
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:34 PM Mike Bergman wrote:
List Moderator (Gary),
This alarms me. The starting post in this thread is putatively
from Edwina, but does not bear the hallmarks of her posting style
nor format. The message itself does not read as from Edwina.
Further, the main message of the post requires us to open a file;
PDF in this case, which does convey a bit more security, but
opening a file nonetheless.
Edwina has subsequently disowned the post. At minimum, we have a
spammer. At maximum, it is much worse.
I'm not sure how the list should proceed from here, but there are
issues that need immediate attention.
Mike
On 12/4/2018 7:59 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
Edwina, List:
Very strange; that message also now appears
in the List archive with today's date
(https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2018-12/msg00004.html
[2]).
ET: I suggest that objective reality exists outside
of the semiosic interaction - and becomes a DO when it
is in some particular individual semiosic interaction.
When you put it that way, I agree in the
sense that an Instance of a Sign is an occurrence,
where the Dynamic Object and Dynamic Interpretant are
what the Sign actually denotes and signifies
(respectively) on that occasion.
In my understanding, the Quasi-mind is what
possesses knowledge (beliefs) and therefore habits, as
the cumulative effect of all previous Signs that have
determined it to various Dynamic Interpretants.
It was Peirce himself who explicitly
stated, "A Sign is a Representamen with a mental
Interpretant" (CP 2.274, EP 2:272-273; 1903).
Regards,
Jon S.
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 5:48 PM Edwina
Taborsky wrote:
Jon, list
I note that your post claims that I sent that message
to the list on Tues, Dec 4, 2018. I haven't posted to
the list for weeks and so have no idea what is going
on.
As for your comment that the SAME DO...produces a
series of signs..etc… My view is that the DO is only a
DO when it has been moved into a semiosic interaction
and as such, is NOT the 'same DO' for all semiosic
actions. That is, I suggest that objective reality
exists outside of the semiosic interaction - and
becomes a DO when it is in some particular individual
semiosic interaction.
The Representamen is in my understanding, the site of
the habits, i.e., the knowledge base. I disagree with
your view that the Representamen is a mere synonym for
'sign. And I consider that all semiosis has a mental
interpretant - understanding 'MIND" in the Peircean
sense to include all of matter [matter is effete
mind].
We each have a very different view of semiosis - and
I'm not willing to get into a huge debate about our
differences.
Edwina
On Tue 04/12/18 5:29 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt
jonalanschm...@gmail.com [4] sent:
Edwina, List:
This diagram suggests to me
a linear input-output process in which each
Quasi-mind's Dynamic Interpretant is (or
determines) the next Quasi-mind's Dynamic
Object. By contrast, my understanding of
Peircean semiosis is that the same Dynamic
Object produces a series of Signs as different
Dynamic Interpretants in different Quasi-minds,
which is only terminated if and when a particular
Quasi-mind's Dynamic Interpretant is a Feeling or
Exertion, rather than yet another Sign (cf. CP
4.536; 1906).
I am not aware of any text
where Peirce defined "Representamen" as "a
generalizing habit-formation process within a
community"; that is what he called "semiosis"
or even "inquiry." Instead, he consistently
used "Representamen" as either a synonym for
"Sign" or a generalization of "Sign" that does
not necessarily have a mental Interpretant (cf.
CP 2.274, EP 2:272-273; 1903).
Rather than being internal
to each individual Quasi-mind, I associate the
Immediate Object and Immediate Interpretant
with the Sign/Representamen itself, in
accordance with the specific System of Signs to
which it belongs. This is what makes it
possible for the Sign/Representamen to serve as a
medium of communication between different
Quasi-minds, "welding" them into one Commens (cf.
CP 4.551 & EP 2.389-391 & EP 2.544n22 & EP
2:478; all 1906).
The Final Interpretant
seems to be missing from this scheme. Where
and how does it fit into the diagram? In my
view, it is the Dynamic Interpretant that the
Sign/Representamen would produce in the ideal
Quasi-mind--the ultimate opinion of an infinite
community after infinite inquiry (cf. CP 8.184,
EP 2:496; 1909).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas,
USA Professional Engineer,
Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [5]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [6]
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at
8:21 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
This is my own very rough drawing of
the semiosic interaction of Quasi-minds
A, B, C…
I’ve set up the triadic Relations on
two levels. That is, the Representamen
is a generalizing habit-formation
process within a community and as such,
it mediates the particular, and
functions on a different spatiotemporal
scale than the particular individual
experiences of the Objects and
Interpretants.
I hope this gets through to the list
– I’m unskilled with the computer
– which dominates me rather than vice
versa.
Edwina
-- __________________________________________ Michael K. Bergman
Cognonto Corporation 319.621.5225 skype:michaelkbergman
http://cognonto.com http://mkbergman.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman
__________________________________________
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'m...@mkbergman.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2] https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2018-12/msg00004.html
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'jonalanschm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[5] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[6] 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 .
