Dear list:
“List, in the interests of the universality of semiosis, it would be helpful, I believe, to do away entirely with the notion of instinct. “ “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.” ______ "Such is the language of all fish," saidst thou; "what they do not fathom is unfathomable.” “There is a strong tendency in us all to be sceptical about there being any real meaning or law in things. This scepticism is strongest in the most masculine thinkers.” Hth, Jerry Rhee On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > >” You say 'how a living entity, as a self, defines the things that > matter'. But how does the 'self' emerge? Exist? How does it KNOW the > 'things that matter'. After all - does a bird have to, via its own self, > learn which insects are food and which are poisonous, or is there an innate > stored knowledge base that provides such information to the collective, of > which that single bird is merely one example?” > > My position on this is that imitation plays just as vital a role for > birds. Furthermore, I am also receptive to Rupert Sheldrake’s morphic > resonance theory, because it is consistent with the DNA nonlocality that I > discuss in my article, Quantum Semiotics > <http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/63>. > The idea that knowledge of which insects are food and which are poisonous > is somehow stored in the genetic code, in the sense of information > determinism, is conjectural. The question of morphic resonance (and DNA > nonlocality) introduces another subconscious level of choice-making, as an > alternative to instinct in the sense of information determinism. And what > do you mean by “How does the ‘self’ emerge?” It emerges by experience, and > experience wires the neuroplastic brain (Norman Doidge, The Brain that > Changes Itself). > > >”But this didn't explain how different isolated populations developed > the same technology or mode of behaviour/belief.” > > Examples? I can’t really comment without specifics. HOW different are > these different, isolated examples? For example, communities that were once > connected but later become isolated from one another, will share the same > *predispositions* in cultural logic, to go on to create the parallel > technologies and beliefs. Predispositions are as relevant to cultures as > they are to mind-bodies. A human mind-body (hands, vocal-cords) is > predisposed to self-evident inventions like fire and the wheel, or even mud > huts and tree huts and even pottery, across most cultures, even when they > are isolated from one another. > > >”that the FORM of matter, i.e., a particular body-shape predisposes the > organism as to its behaviour.” > > The late Tomas Sebeok’s line of thinking basically parallels my own, when > he attributes an ape’s inability to speak to the absence of vocal chords: > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/02/us/thomas-sebeok-81- > debunker-of-ape-human-speech-theory.html > > >”So - the wings of a bird will predispose it to fly - but that's not > an analysis in my view.” > > What do you mean that it’s not an analysis? It’s a self-evident > observation… like an axiom. Experience wires the neuroplastic brain (Norman > Doidge), and a winged animal is predisposed to wiring its brain to fly. > Furthermore, in many species of birds, young birds learn to fly from their > parents. That is, they learn to apply their winged predispositions, from > their parents. So again, imitation plays an important role, despite the > physiological predispositions. > > >”Am I correct that your analysis excludes Mind and Thirdness? It seems > to focus primarily on Firstness and Secondness - if I may use these > Peircean categories within its framework.” > > Absolutely not. Thirdness is integral to my line of thinking. I was > addressing that aspect of semiosis - pragmatism and imitation - that is > best characterized in the context of firstness and secondness. What is it > that *motivates* an organism to imitate (the associations that become > habits)? That’s a question, in the first instance, of Firstness. > > >”It also seems to focus on the individual [as Self] rather than the > collective [i.e., that exclusion of Thirdness].” > > Again, as per preceding point, I am addressing that aspect of semiosis – > pragmatism and imitation – that most immediately takes place at the level > of the self. There is, of course, the collective that provides the > recursion of behaviors that manifests as habit, or Thirdness, but that’s > beyond the point that I wanted to emphasize. > > Just a final comment on what I am trying to achieve with my line of > thinking. There are now estimated to be trillions of galaxies throughout > the universe, with a couple hundred-thousand stars per galaxy. What I am > outlining, with my line of thinking, suggests life as inevitable, and not > accidental. It’s a living universe. Mine is an attempt to address the > entropy problem - Shannon entropy, thermodynamic entropy, entropy as the > tendency to disorder. By contrast, the notion of instinct as stored > information, as with the NeoDarwinian theory of evolution, are inconsistent > with the reality of entropy. It is the *persistence* of complexity across > time, as evident in the persistence of life across time on Earth, that is > the deal-breaker for any kind of information determinism. > > Regards sj > > > > *From:* Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca <tabor...@primus.ca>] > *Sent:* Sunday, December 10, 2017 5:40 PM > *To:* tabor...@primus.ca; g...@gnusystems.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; > 'Mike Bergman'; Stephen Jarosek > *Subject:* Re: RE: RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature > > > > Stephen, list: > > > I think that this is a vastly different perspective from one that includes > Mind and Thirdness. > > You say 'how a living entity, as a self, defines the things that matter'. > But how does the 'self' emerge? Exist? How does it KNOW the 'things that > matter'. After all - does a bird have to, via its own self, learn which > insects are food and which are poisonous, or is there an innate stored > knowledge base that provides such information to the collective, of which > that single bird is merely one example? > > As for 'imitation' - this sounds similar to the old 'diffusion' > explanation of human behaviour, where it was assumed that a new technology > was invented once and then, diffused by imitation to other populations. But > this didn't explain how different isolated populations developed the same > technology or mode of behaviour/belief. > > You seem to be saying, if I understand you correctly, that the FORM of > matter, i.e., a particular body-shape predisposes the organism as to its > behaviour. So - the wings of a bird will predispose it to fly - but > that's not an analysis in my view. > > Am I correct that your analysis excludes Mind and Thirdness? It seems to > focus primarily on Firstness and Secondness - if I may use these Peircean > categories within its framework. > > It also seems to focus on the individual [as Self] rather than the > collective [i.e., that exclusion of Thirdness]. > > Edwina > > > > > > > *On Sun 10/12/17 11:19 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au > <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> sent:* > > Hi Edwina > > No, *knowing how to be* is not a synonym for instinct. It is an > expression of pragmatism, and how a living entity, as a self, defines the > things that matter. It particularly relates to firstness and self. *Knowing > how to be* incorporates the *self* into pragmatism. I suppose one might > say, in this context, that a proper appreciation of firstness needs to > factor in the role of self, and the self’s relationship to the world, in > the context of its needs. By taking this approach, we attain a different > and more compelling perspective on the role of *imitation*, particularly > in the context of pragmatism. By factoring in *imitation*, we obtain a > greater appreciation of the nuances that motivate a self to *imitation*… > for example, fear. Fear motivates selves to imitate the current Bitcoin > craze… the fear of missing out, versus the fear of loss when people begin > to flee the market. The comfortable known versus fear of the unknown. > > Mind-body predisposition… again, relates to pragmatism. The body provides > the “tools” that predispose us to how we define the things that matter… as > per Mark Twain’s famous aphorism, ‘A man whose only tool is a hammer will > perceive the world in terms of nails’. > > There are different layers to pragmatism, for example: > > 1) There are the mind-body predispositions; > > 2) There is imitation. > > > > Imitation sometimes overrides mind-body predispositions, for example, in > the domestication of animals or in the feralization of humans (feral > children, eg, the Wild Boy of Aveyron). > > Regards > > > > *From:* Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] > *Sent:* Sunday, December 10, 2017 4:26 PM > *To:* tabor...@primus.ca; g...@gnusystems.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; > 'Mike Bergman'; Stephen Jarosek > *Subject:* Re: RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature > > > > > 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 > <http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/63>. > > > 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] > *Sent:* Sunday, December 10, 2017 2:07 AM > *To:* g...@gnusystems.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; 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 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 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] > *Sent:* 9-Dec-17 17:25 > *To:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > *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. > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
