> On Mar 30, 2017, at 6:30 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > > In Peirce, we read about semiosis within protoplasm, within crystals, within > the formation of matter [matter is effete Mind]. None of this deals with > terminology but with the pragmatic function of semiosis - which Peirce sees, > as far as I can understand, as the gradual evolution of Mind. Mind is NOT a > synonym of the human mind or consciousness but of the natural world.
I think this gets at definition problems though. For instance often mind and consciousness are used synonymously in discourse. As you note that’s not how Peirce primarily uses it, although he’ll sometimes slip into other use when speaking more casually. In contemporary discourse even consciousness is ambiguous since it can simultaneously mean a kind of first person qualia or awareness of phenomena or even self-awareness as a kind of reflexive knowledge of a phenomena and that one is also aware that one is aware of the phenomena as a self-awareness. The former is pure firstness for Peirce I think although he’ll also sometimes call it the inner aspect of the swerve or chance in a sign process. The other aspects are indexical aspects of signs and simple complexity of signs. But one quickly sees that keeping ones terminology is important. While I’m more dubious towards his foundational ontologies it seems these matters become crucial there. While we’ve discussed those ontologies a lot of late, it’s mainly been due to other issues such as Peirce’s sense of truth. > If one focuses only on words and terms, then, it is just as easy, indeed > easier, to use the semiotics of such as Saussure or Morris ..for these are > all about 'this' means 'that' - and one can get readily into the seeming joy > of 'hidden meanings'. But Peirce doesn't deal with this; his semiotics is an > active, adaptive and evolving process of generation of Mind-into-Matter - a > much more difficult analysis. I’d actually disagree quite a lot with that. I think both miss key aspects of meaning - particularly Saussure whose structuralism is quite static whereas Peirce’s thirdness and definition of a sign anticipates much of post-structuralism. (Indeed one could argue that indirectly a lot of post-structuralism arises out of Peirce)
----------------------------- 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 .
