Re: [PEIRCE-L] Another Perspective on 'Quasi-Mind'

[Gary Richmond]

Edwina, list,

You wrote:

ET: I'd say that 'resonance' can be equated with 'semiosis', which in my
view, is a constant ongoing reality in our material world. As the article
says ' all things are constantly in motion, vibrating'. I'd say that all
things are in a constant process of semiosis.

I can't say that I completely follow you here although, I must admit, I
have only begun thinking about Hunt's theory and am still quite confused
about it.

How can 'resonance' be '*equated*' (as you wrote; a rather strong term to
use in this context, I think) with 'semiosis'? In physics resonance is
typically defined along the lines of its being "the oscillating,
reciprocating, or other periodic motion of a body or medium forced from its
original position or state., etc" I'm not yet sure how this 'equates' with
semiosis?  But Hunt's use of the term is technical, and I'm still uncertain
exactly how he's using it.

But, similarly, how is it that all things being in constant vibrational
movement is similar to "being in a constant process of semiosis"? Semiosis
has a definite structure involving, as you yourself frequently point out,
all three categories, a direction, etc.. I don't YET see anything
corresponding to this in the constant vibration underlying all matter in
the universe. You continued:

ET: Coherence - can be compared with Thirdness or synchronization.

I think I might begin to see what you're suggesting here were this comment
phrased somewhat differently, say: "Coherence (or synchronization in the
context of the discussion in the article) - can be compared with
Thirdness."  For 'synchronization' is generally understood as the activity
of two or more things operating at the same time/rate (perhaps,
consequently, in a closely related manner, etc.) While this synchronizing
would no doubt involve a kind of 3ns, it's hard for me to see *how *it
should be "compared" with 3ns.

And yet, as Hunt employs synchronization in his theory as likely involved
in generating self-organization, I do, perhaps, begin to see
how--especially when welded to the idea of 'coherence'--that it might have
some significant relation to semiosis and, so, be an expression of 3ns. In
this connection Hunt writes;

Resonance is a truly universal phenomenon and at the heart of what can
sometimes seem like mysterious tendencies toward self-organization.

Obviously, I will have to do a great deal more thinking on this matter, and
especially as 'coherence', tending as it does towards forming unities
involving qualities of logicality and consistency, does seem aligned to 3ns.

   1. ET: With regard to the article's use of consciousness - they seem to
   refer to a process going on  within individualism or Secondness, rather
   than a mental reflection of the external environment. This process is
   mental. So,  I'd substitute 'Mind' for 'consciousness' in these
   situations.  So, yes, all things are individual instances of Mind/Matter. A
   bacterium has a sense of its own finiteness and also, is an expression of
   Mind and as such, can interact with other expressions of Mind.

While from the standpoint of Peirce's theory I can certainly see why you
might prefer 'mind' to 'consciousness',  yet to do that would deeply
undercut Hunt's theory from the get go as he summarizes it near the
conclusion of the piece:

The central thesis of our approach is this: the particular linkages that
allow for macro-consciousness to occur result from a shared resonance among
many micro-conscious constituents. The speed of the resonant waves that are
present is the limiting factor that determines the size of each conscious
entity.

So, personally, I would prefer to give his hypothesis some
considerable reflection
on its own principles before rejecting 'consciousness' as the appropriate
term for what he's getting at. Perhaps he's onto something suggesting
that "It’s
resonating structures all the way down—and up," and that these 'resonating
structues' are, indeed, conscious to some degree or another.


ET: And I'd agree that 'as matter becomes more complex, 'so does mind'.


I think I might agree with this, but at the moment can think of so many
possible exceptions at both the micro- and macro-levels as to make me
question even that.

Meanwhile, thank you ever so much for this post as it has helped me to
begin to wrestle with Hunt's theory.

Best,

Gary


*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*

*718 482-5690*


On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:57 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> Thanks for the article - and yes, although it doesn't mention Peirce, it
> fits right in with his more exact theory.
>
> A few points:
>
> I'd say that 'resonance' can be equated with 'semiosis', which in my view,
> is a constant ongoing reality in our material world. As the article says '
> all things are constantly in motion, vibrating'. I'd say that all things
> are in a constant process of semiosis.
>
> 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics] Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis

[Christophe Menant]

Agreed Edwina, a CAS (a local system) is indeed submitted to external and 
internal constraints. But they have to be considered differently relatively to 
the  meaning generation process by the MGS in the CAS.
Internal constraints characterize the nature of the CAS (stay alive, look for 
happiness, ..). They are resident in the CAS and part of its nature.
External constraints (lack of food, stressing environment, …) are results of 
meaning generations by the MGS in the CAS when the latter  receives information 
from its environment (no more fruit on trees, new boss).
Internal constraints are resident in the CAS/MGS. External constraints are 
built up by the CAS/MGS.
This point had not been explicited so far. Thanks for having highlighted the 
concern.
Best
Christophe

Envoyé de mon iPhone

Le 3 déc. 2018 à 21:59, Edwina Taborsky 
mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>> a écrit :


I have no problem with your outline - makes excellent sense to me. A few 
questions:

1] (understood as a local volume far from thermodynamic equilibrium and acting 
on the environment and on itself to maintain its status).  YES - AGREE.

2]  a local system submitted to an internal constraint

QUESTION: Aren't all systems subject to both internal AND EXTERNAL constraints?

That is - I consider that the 'local system' functions as a CAS [complex 
adaptive system] and is therefore in intimate informational interaction with 
its local environment. This system must include Thirdness, which is non-local, 
and is expressed locally, as Secondness.

Edwina Taborsky



On Mon 03/12/18 4:19 AM , Christophe Menant 
christophe.men...@hotmail.fr sent:

> Dear all,
> Let me come back for a while to the key questions as formulated by Dipti :
> ”What was the very first instance of semiosis and why, where and how did it 
> occur? What preceded it, and what triggered it?"
> We do not have scientifically acceptable answers to these questions but we 
> can get close to them by using an evolutionary thread backwards, and 
> correspondinly highlight some related aspect.
> It is first worth recalling that semiosis cannot exist alone but has to be 
> related to some meaning of a sign, to some entity having a finality. And the 
> today understanding of the evolution of our universe positions a first 
> finality at the emergence of life (understood as a local volume far from 
> thermodynamic equilibrium and acting on the environment and on itself to 
> maintain its status).
> Such a background brings to value a local system submitted to an internal 
> constraint as a natural model for semiotics and meaning generation. This has 
> been highlighted at Biosemiotics Gatherings 2015 & 2016 
> (https://philpapers.org/rec/MENMGF-2
>  )and upgraded at IS4SI 2017 (https://philpapers.org/archive/MENICA-2 ). The 
> focus is then on a system submitted to an internal constraint and potentially 
> covering a spectrum going from a pre-biotic level to a post-human one. That 
> frame includes an evolutionary nature of self-consciousness (with anxiety 
> limitation as a key constraint), and leaves open the nature of life where 
> quantum mechanics is to have a say (more to come on that). Simple definitions 
> for agency and autonomy are introduced.
> Surprizingly, that perspective (kicked off at Gatherings 2002) has found 
> little echo in the Biosemiotics or Pierce-l communities (as a possible 
> modeling of the Interpreter).
> Best
> Christophe
>
>
> Sent from my iPad



-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Another Perspective on 'Quasi-Mind'

[Gary Richmond]

Mike, Jon, Gene, list,

I'm not sure the article has much--if anything--to do with 'quasi-mind' as
Peirce conceived of it, Mike, but I am intrigued, as I have been for some
time, by the idea of 'panpsychism', to which the article's author's
'resonance theory of consciousness' suggests, perhaps, an approach to
testing that hypothesis.

While Jon is, of course, quite right that  Peirce wrote that matter was
mind "hidebound with habits," and that matter was "effete mind," and while
Peirce occasionally even suggested that matter was 'dead', he didn't always
see it exactly that way, and even in the passage in which he referred to
matter as "hidebound with habits":.

1892 | The Law of Mind | W 8:155; CP 6.158

…what we call matter is not completely dead, but is merely mind hidebound
with habits. It still retains the element of diversification; and i*n that
diversification there is life *(*in Commens* dictionary, emphasis added by
me).


I would suggest that holding, as the author of the article does, that mind
and matter are "complexified" together, may re-introduce the very dualism
which Peirce's philosophy is at pains to overcome. On the other hand, to
insist that there is *no* life in matter, that it is completely dead, is to
again risk introducing that self-same duality.

And, I would suggest, Jon, that however things may be in consideration of
logic in itself, let's not forget that the *science* is 'logic as
*semeiotic'* and NOT 'logic as *semiosis*.' Which is to say that in the
science there is necessarily a great deal of abstraction from living
semiosis.

Peirce, who, of course, knew nothing of the quantum realm, and so what
might be 'happening' *there*, yet in the context of his tychism thought
that atoms must 'swerve' a little. How else would there ever be variety in
nature? So, now, looking at both the atomic and the quantum levels, it
seems to me that there is indeed quite a bit of 'swerving' at every level
at which one might look at matter.


Or, as Tam Hunt, the author of the article writes:


All things in our universe are constantly in motion, vibrating. Even
objects that appear to be stationary are in fact vibrating, oscillating,
resonating, at various frequencies. Resonance is a type of motion,
characterized by oscillation between two states. And ultimately all matter
is just vibrations of various underlying fields

.


I agree with Gene that the article you posted, Mike, is most
thought-provoking. So thanks for sharing it with us. I think there may be,
at least potentially, much Peirce-related thinking in it even it doesn't
directly relate to Peirce's concert of 'quasi-mind'. Indeed, I hope we
might find ways to pursue Hunt's resonance theory of consciousness further
on the list.

Best,

Gary






 "

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*

*718 482-5690*


On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:03 PM Eugene Halton 
wrote:

> Thought provoking article I can ... resonate ... with. Thanks for sending,
> Mike.
> Gene Halton
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:59 AM Mike Bergman  wrote:
>
>> List,
>>
>> Speaking of quasi-minds, this reference is very thought provoking,
>> though the author does not mention Peirce:
>>
>>
>> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-hippies-were-right-its-all-about-vibrations-man/
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>

-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Another Perspective on 'Quasi-Mind'

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Thanks for the article - and yes, although it doesn't mention
Peirce, it fits right in with his more exact theory.

A few points:

I'd say that 'resonance' can be equated with 'semiosis', which in my
view, is a constant ongoing reality in our material world. As the
article says ' all things are constantly in motion, vibrating'. I'd
say that all things are in a constant process of semiosis.

Coherence - can be compared with Thirdness or synchronization.

With regard to the article's use of consciousness - they seem to
refer to a process going on  within individualism or Secondness,
rather than a mental reflection of the external environment. This
process is mental. So,  I'd substitute 'Mind' for 'consciousness' in
these situations.  So, yes, all things are individual instances of
Mind/Matter. A bacterium has a sense of its own finiteness and also,
is an expression of Mind and as such, can interact with other
expressions of Mind. 

And I'd agree that 'as matter becomes more complex, 'so does mind'. 

Edwina
 On Wed 05/12/18 11:58 AM , Mike Bergman m...@mkbergman.com sent:
 List, 
 Speaking of quasi-minds, this reference is very thought provoking,  
 though the author does not mention Peirce: 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-hippies-were-right-its-all-about-vibrations-man/
[1] 
 Mike 


Links:
--
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fblogs.scientificamerican.com%2Fobservations%2Fthe-hippies-were-right-its-all-about-vibrations-man%2F

-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Another Perspective on 'Quasi-Mind'

[Eugene Halton]

Thought provoking article I can ... resonate ... with. Thanks for sending,
Mike.
Gene Halton



On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:59 AM Mike Bergman  wrote:

> List,
>
> Speaking of quasi-minds, this reference is very thought provoking,
> though the author does not mention Peirce:
>
>
> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-hippies-were-right-its-all-about-vibrations-man/
>
> Mike
>
>
>

-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Another Perspective on 'Quasi-Mind'

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Mike, List:

According to Peirce, consciousness is not logically necessary for something
to be a Quasi-mind involved in semiosis.

CSP:  For the purpose of this inquiry a Sign may be defined as a Medium for
the communication of a Form. It is not logically necessary that anything
possessing consciousness, that is, feeling of the peculiar common quality
of all our feeling, should be concerned. But it is necessary that there
should be two, if not three, *quasi-minds*, meaning things capable of
varied determination as to forms of the kind communicated. (EP 2:544n22;
1906)


The Sheet of Assertion or Phemic Sheet in Existential Graphs obviously does
not possess consciousness, yet Peirce called it a Quasi-mind (cf. CP 4.550
& EP 2:545n25; both 1906).

My main issue with the linked article is its claim that matter and mind
"complexified" together, whereas Peirce viewed matter as "effete mind" (CP
6.25; 1891) that has become "hidebound with habits" (CP 6.158; 1892).

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 10:59 AM Mike Bergman  wrote:

> List,
>
> Speaking of quasi-minds, this reference is very thought provoking,
> though the author does not mention Peirce:
>
>
> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-hippies-were-right-its-all-about-vibrations-man/
>
> Mike
>

-
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 .

Aw: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis

[Helmut Raulien]

Stephen, list,

I see your points, and agree that culture, knowing how to be, and imitation are important. But I think, that for knowing how to be threre are other references besides culture too. Cultural evolution, historically, takes place in a certain, relatively small time scale. Human traits also come from much more ancient evolutional achievements like humans, mammals, vertebrates, nervous animals, organisms, universal natural laws. I dont think that we disagree out of principle, we just emphasize differently: My point is, that somebody who feels that the culture s*he lives in sucks, and wants to get out of it, can do that, like you said, press the restart-button "This is the first day of the rest of my life", and can therefore rely on noncultural references, like humanism based on panhuman traits, universal logic (like Kant´s pure reason), or so. Therefore I am trying to emphasize these noncultural references. But I think, what you wrote about niches and subcultures is very helpful. E.g. in Albania on one hand there is the blood revenge culture, but on the other hand there also is the "Besa", which moderates it, and has saved many Jews from the Germans during the Nazi-Regime in WW2. I think, the "Besa" is somehow scaffolding on non-, or precultural habits or laws. So i think, the scaffold-metaphor "one thing is put on the former" is too simple, because there are these different time scales.

Best, helmut

 

 02. Dezember 2018 um 12:13 Uhr
 "Stephen Jarosek" 
wrote:




I agree with you, Helmut, that the concept of culture is extremely important. More important than the vast, overwhelming majority of people can hope to understand. I was blessed with having to grow up in a dysfunctional war-refugee family, and having to make sense of a hyper-materialistic-hedonistic “fun” culture that believes its own bullshit (actually, all cultures believe their own bullshit, by definition, but the most hedonistic-materialistic are the worst… but I digress). Suspended within a no-man’s land without sensible truths to anchor to, I had to formulate my own interpretations from scratch. Eastern religions such as Buddhism often refer to the importance of letting go of assumptions and definitions, as part of spiritual practice. Far from the leisure of spiritual practice, this was a condition that was foisted on me as a matter of survival, it was not a condition that I chose.

What people don’t realize is the importance of imitation. They don’t get it, that all that they ever have are assumptions. Imitation is actually the wrong word… a more precise phrase is “knowing how to be”. It’s about the replication of behavior… taking your culture’s assumptions for granted. Maybe we need a new word that synthesizes assuming with imitating. Assimitating maybe? Yes… for want of a better word, let’s stick with that… assimitating. And let’s define it in the context of “knowing how to be”. First of all, one has to choose a niche from their culture to belong to. Secondly, they have to assimitate and replicate the assumptions of their chosen niche, to strictly observe its limits. One can move across niches, and one must choose one to belong to, but limits must be observed. Niche boundaries do not necessarily appear strict to those observing them, however, because they assume that this is “just” the way that reality is. Observing niche boundaries is a fine balancing act between the courage of individualism and the cowardice of conformity. Courageous observance (testing the limits) is for leaders, timid observance is for followers. But no matter what, niche boundaries MUST be observed. For those that fail to observe said boundaries, or push the boundaries too far with their courage, and there are sizeable numbers of both, their lot is often disenfranchisement, invisibility, maybe even psychosis or schizophrenia.

So what are the boundaries of the culture as a whole? As I’ve mentioned before in other threads, culture is analogous to a thought. A society of people is to culture what a brain of neurons is to thought. Metaphors from chaos theory are informative. Role models as attractors. Boundary conditions. Initial conditions. A culture comprised of subcultures (niches) is still a unity. The farthest niches from one another, within a culture, are still fundamentally united in their sharing of the assumptions that matter (pragmatism). Assimitation within a culture is integral to pragmatism, because it’s how people establish the assumptions that matter. Assumptions are habits… thirdness.

Initial conditions is a concept that has especially caught my attention of late. It relates to scaffolding. Meaning is built upon meaning, and the initial conditions… first experiences… are important because of this. You can’t just wake up one morning and decide to change your world-view with the affirmative “this is the first day of the rest of my life.” But it also goes much deeper than that. I am recognizing this as I walk around the city streets of my 

[PEIRCE-L] Another Perspective on 'Quasi-Mind'

[Mike Bergman]

List,

Speaking of quasi-minds, this reference is very thought provoking, 
though the author does not mention Peirce:


https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-hippies-were-right-its-all-about-vibrations-man/

Mike



-
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 .

Re: Re: CAUTION: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Quasi Minds A and B and C

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

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  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  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/msg4.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 
>> 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 

Re: Re: CAUTION: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Quasi Minds A and B and C

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 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/msg4.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 
 Taborskywrote:
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