Edwina, Gary R., List: I vaguely remembered seeing that diagram before, so I did some digging in the archive and found a very similar post by Edwina from March 22 ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2018-03/msg00206.html). Of course, I have no idea why the alternate version appeared on the List more than eight months later.
Regards, Jon S. On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 7:59 AM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > 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 Thinking > Communication Studies > LaGuardia College of the City University of New York > 718 482-5690 > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:34 PM Mike Bergman <m...@mkbergman.com> 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). >> >> 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 <tabor...@primus.ca> >> 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 >>> 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 - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 8:21 AM Edwina Taborsky < tabor...@primus.ca> >>> 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 >> 319.621.5225skype:michaelkbergmanhttp://cognonto.comhttp://mkbergman.comhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman >> __________________________________________ >> >>
----------------------------- 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 .
