Mike, list
Many thanks. And yes, this Peircean semiosis does indeed function in
how matter itself evolved - from quarks to heavy elements and crystals
- to that 'internalization' of Thirdness [the knowledge-base] into the
individual bits of matter. That is, an atom's knowledge base is held
by the community to to speak and external to each individual
articulation of that knowledge base. That's actually important -
since it means that the organization of matter within that atom can't
randomly change; it provides for a basic stability and continuity in
our world.
BUT - once you move the knowledge base within each individual
materialization - then, you can get variations of that knowledge base
via not merely random mutations within the base, but changes effected
by input from other individuals [via degenerate Thirdness or
3-2]...and that enables an explosion of diversity and complexity.
Edwina
On Sat 20/01/18 2:45 PM , Mike Bergman m...@mkbergman.com sent:
+1
Edwina, I think this is one of your best, most succinct
descriptions. It is how I understand Peirce and semiosis as
well. Without such an understanding, there is no continuity and
explanation for reality in relation to cosmic evolution in
Peirce's metaphysics. In fact, it should also guide our
understanding of how matter itself evolved, from quarks to heavy
elements and crystals.
Mike
On 1/20/2018 1:34 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
List - the key problem, I think, in understanding Peircean
semiosis as basic in all forms of matter - and he included the
physical-chemical realm as well as the biological and the human
- is that many people see semiosis primarily as a means of
communication. It has little to do with that; you don't need a
triad for communication - you can achieve that with multiple
linear dyads - the 'conveyor belt system'.
Peircean semiosis is triadic, which inserts that vital relation
of Mediation between the external Dynamic Object - and the
Interpretant. This Mediation need NOT be operative, always,
within 'genuine Thirdness' - [3-3] but must, vitally, also
operate with the two degenerate forms of Thirdness [3-2 and
3-1]. Without these two degenerate modes - the world simply
could not function, because 3-3 is pure idealism and Peirce
rejected such a Platonic world. Instead, as an Aristotelian, he
'grounded' semiosic actions with real material objects.
Firstness and Secondness ground reality-into-existence.
Mediation has a transformative function, using its habitual
knowledge base to transform the input sensate data into...an
Interpretant [which can be a concept OR a different form of
matter; i.e., a bird eats seeds to transform into its own
flesh]...and, as well, it has a learning function - , via
3-2, [the 'in touch with others mode of learning] . and
exploring external stimuli in its environment - to gather
information. And consolidating what it has learned via 3-1 [the
iconic mode of habituation]. Genuine Thirdness [3-3] is the
basic Mind, the will-to-organize and network, of the universe.
And as noted, genuine Thirdness vitally needs the two degenerate
modes to function.
Edwina
On Sat 20/01/18 2:05 PM , g...@gnusystems.ca sent:
John, list,
I agree with much of what you’ve said here,
and my book deals with biosemiotics from Chapter
3 on, so I won’t repeat any of that here. But
I’m surprised that no one in this thread has
cited Lowell 3.13, as it’s possibly Peirce’s
clearest statement of the possibility of genuine
Thirdness and representation going beyond human
thought and language.
In the Peirce texts I’ve quoted in the past
week, he established that representamen
is a more general term than sign, signs being the
kind of representamens that “convey
notions to human minds” (emphasis Peirce’s),
and that “Possibly there may be Representamens that
are not Signs.” But “representamen” was defined in
the first place by starting with signs, as “such
conveyers of thought are familiarly known to us,”
and making “the best analysis I can of what is
essential to a sign, and I define a
representamen as being whatever that analysis
applies to.” This way he could use the term
“sign” to refer strictly to human uses of them,
because he now had a different word for the genuine
Thirdness and triadicity of relatedness which is
“essential” to signs apart from the “accidental
human element."
As I explained in the Lowell 3.13 thread, a
couple of years later Peirce decided that he
might as well use the word “sign” itself,
instead of “representamen,” for “what is
essential to a sign” (though for awhile he used
the words as synonyms). And it was around this
time that Peirce began using the terms
“sem[e]iotic” and “semiosis” much more
than he had before. So Peircean semiotics is
naturally associated with a notion of “sign” which
is not limited to human use of signs; but the Lowell
lectures may represent his first clear move in that
direction.
Gary f.
-----Original Message-----
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
Sent: 20-Jan-18 11:20
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell
Lecture 3.12
Edwina and Gary R,
I changed the subject line to biosemiosis in
order to emphasize that Peirce had intended
semiosis to cover the full realm of all living
things. Note what he wrote in a letter to Lady
Welby:
CSP, MS 463 (1908)
> I define a Sign as anything which is so
determined by something else,
> called its Object, and so determines an effect
upon a person, which
> effect I call its Interpretant, that the
latter is thereby mediately
> determined by the former. My insertion of
“upon a person” is a sop to
> Cerberus, because I despair of making my own
broader conception
> understood.
I believe that "despair" is the primary reason
why he didn't say more.
His insistence on continuity implied that the
faculties of the human mind must be continuous
with the minds (or quasi-minds) of all living
things anywhere in the universe. But if he had
said that, he would have been denounced by a huge
number of critics from philosophy, psychology,
science, religion, and politics.
Edwina
> I do think that limiting Peircean semiosis to
the human conceptual
> realm is a disservice to Peircean semiosis...
I won't repeat my
> constant reference to 4.551.
Gary
> I believe, you've had to depend on CP 4.551 as
much as you have (there
> are a very few other suggestions scattered
through his work, but none
> of them are much developed).
The reason why there are so few is that Peirce
felt a need to throw a "sop to Cerberus" in order
to get people to take his ideas seriously. I'm
sure that he would gladly have written much more
if they were ready to listen.
For a very important and carefully worded
quotation, see CP 2.227:
> all signs used by a "scientific" intelligence,
that is to say, by an
> intelligence capable of learning by
experience.
That comment certainly includes all large
animals. In addition to explicit statements
about signs, it's important to note his anecdotes
about dogs and parrots. He observed some
remarkable performances, which implied
"scientific intelligence". Although he didn't say
so explicitly, he wouldn't have made the effort to
write those anecdotes if he didn't think so.
Since Peirce talked about "crystals and bees" in
CP 4.551, he must have been thinking about the
continuity to zoosemiosis, and from that to the
intermediate stages of phytosemiosis, biosemiosis
by microbes, crystal formation, and eventually to
all of chemistry and physics.
He would have been delighted to learn about the
signs called DNA and the semiosis that interprets
those signs in all aspects of life.
Many people have observed strong similarities
with Whitehead's process philosophy. ANW also
had a continuity of mind-like things from the
lowest levels to something he called God. He
wrote most of his philosophical books at Harvard,
and he also wrote some sympathetic words about
Peirce. He admitted that he hadn't read much of
Peirce's work, but Clarence Irving Lewis, the
chairman of the philosophy dept. at that time,
had studied Peirce's MSS in great detail. And
Whitehead was also the thesis advisor for the two
graduate students, Hartshorne and Weiss, who edited
the CP.
ANW must have absorbed much more than he cited
in his references.
We should also remember that there are thousands
of pages of MSS that have not yet been transcribed
and studied. Nobody knows how much more might be
discovered about all these issues. But the
fragments that do exist show that he had intended
much more.
John
-----------------------------
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 .
