Stephen - the problem I have with your hypothesis is that you
haven't explained what 'know how to be' involves. How does it exist?
Where? How does it evolve? It seems to be a synonym for 'instinct'!
What is a 'mind-body' predisposition?
Edwina
On Sun 10/12/17 10:05 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au
sent:
List, in the interests of the universality of semiosis, it would be
helpful, I believe, to do away entirely with the notion of instinct.
No such thing. ALL organism's are decision-makers, making choices
from their ecosystems. What one might typically categorize as
instinct, in other animals, is nothing other than a reduced horizon
of options (analogous to a goldfish living inside a small bowl
instead of a wide ocean). ALL organisms have to "know how to be." A
fish behaves exactly as I would behave if my body were that of a
fish. Or, putting it another way… a man behaves as a woman would
behave if her body were that of a man.
And once we do away with this notion of instinct as a preprogrammed
blueprint for behavior, so too we might extend the same reasoning to
atoms and molecules. That is, the mechanics of chemical bonds and
subatomic forces are not what "determine" atomic and molecular
properties (behavior). Rather, atoms and molecules must also "know
how to be", in accordance with their own mind-body predispositions...
that's why semiosis is relevant also to quantum mechanics, imho... and
nonlocality (entanglement) is integral to enabling semiosis to take
place at that level. The mechanics of chemical bonds and subatomic
forces are the product of semiosis, and not its cause. Hence the
motivation behind my previously-referenced article, Quantum Semiotics
[1].
While we are discussing the role of mind-body predispositions in
semiosis and pragmatism... I am reminded of Simon and Garfunkel's El
Condor Pasa. In its original form, it was a Peruvian folk song about
a group of Andean miners who were exploited by their boss. The condor
(condor mind-body) looks from the sky, at the human mind-bodies
toiling away in the mines, and it becomes the symbol of freedom for
the miners to achieve:
I'd rather be a sparrow than a snail
Yes, I would; If I could; I surely would
I'd rather be a hammer than a nail
Yes, I would; If I only could; I surely would
Away, I'd rather sail away
Like a swan that's here and gone
A man gets tied up to the ground
He gives the world its saddest sound
It's saddest sound
I'd rather be a forest than a street
Yes, I would; If I could; I surely would
I'd rather feel the earth beneath my feet
Yes, I would; If I only could; I surely would
Regards
From: Edwina Taborsky [ mailto:tabor...@primus.ca [2]]
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2017 2:07 AM
To: g...@gnusystems.ca [3]; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu [4]; Mike
Bergman
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature
Mike, list - My reference to semiosis within the physical realm
refers to its functioning as a triadic process:
Object-Representamen-Interpretant, with each of these nodes in any
one of the three modal categories.
Certainly, as in the quotes from my other post - habit-taking is a
basic quality in the physical realm [see his discussion of such by
atoms]. But semiosis is not simply habit-taking [ which is a modal
category]. It is a relational or interactive process where one 'bit'
of matter interacts with another 'bit' of matter. This is not, as
Peirce frequently pointed out, confined to mechanical interactions
[Secondness], but includes both spontaneity [Firstness] and also,
Mind or Thirdness.
But - the focus is on the results of these interactions. Does a
crystal simply increase its size by simple mechanical contact or, are
its atoms such that Mind both attracts and organizes this expansion.
The latter is a key semiosic interaction. [though I would say that a
simple mechanical triadic interaction is also semiosic - with each
node [O-R-I] in a mode of Secondness. But organization of the
results of contact - involves Mind or Thirdness.
Edwina
On Sat 09/12/17 6:50 PM , Mike Bergman m...@mkbergman.com [5] sent:
Hi Gary f, List,
I am generally familiar with the general references for laws and the
tendencies to them. I guess I did not address my question well. Are
there passages from Peirce where he specifically connects semiosis or
signs to nature, other than the passing reference to crystals? I
believe we can infer that Peirce likely believed the laws of nature
to be subject to semiosis, but is it anywhere stated something like
that?
I found the connection of CP 5.105 'law of nature' to signs or
semiosis in the context of my question to be unclear, though
suggesting it was helpful. I read on and found CP 5.107 a little more
to the point, but still vague. I do like the fact this comes up in his
discussion of the reality of Thirdness. Still, pretty thin gruel.
Maybe that is as strong as the evidence gets.
Thanks!
Mike
On 12/9/2017 5:02 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca [6] wrote:
Mike,
There are plenty of passages in Peirce which virtually identify
semiosis with Representation and thus with Thirdness, and the laws of
nature being general laws, Thirdness is predominant in them. For
instance there is CP 5.105, EP 2:184):
[[ Thirdness, as I use the term, is only a synonym for
Representation, to which I prefer the less colored term because its
suggestions are not so narrow and special as those of the word
Representation. Now it is proper to say that a general principle that
is operative in the real world is of the essential nature of a
Representation and of a Symbol because its modus operandi is the
same as that by which words produce physical effects. ]]
Gary f.
From: Mike Bergman [mailto:m...@mkbergman.com [7]]
Sent: 9-Dec-17 17:25
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu [8]
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature
Hi List,
I was reading Nathan Houser's piece on "Peirce, Phenomenology, and
Semiotics" in the Routledge Companion [1] and came across this quote:
"One of the principal realms of sign activity, or semiosis
(semeiosis), is human thought; but semiosis prevails wherever there
is life and there is some reason to believe that even the laws of
nature are semiotic products." (emphasis added)
I am aware of the reference to crystals and bees (CP 4.551), but do
not recall seeing Peirce references to signs in inanimate nature
other than crystals. Does anyone on the list know of others?
Thanks!
Mike
[1] Houser, N., “Peirce, Phenomenology, and Semiotics,” The
Routledge Companion to Semiotics, P. Cobley, ed., London ; New
York: Routledge, 2010, pp. 89–100.
Links:
------
[1]
http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/63
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'g...@gnusystems.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-l@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[5]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'m...@mkbergman.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[6] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(
[7] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(
[8] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(
-----------------------------
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 .
