Edwina, Gary R, Stephen, and Gary F, Edwina
I emphasize that semiosis is operative not merely in the more complex or larger-brain animals, but in all matter, from the smallest micro bacterium to the plant world to the animal world.
Yes. I like to quote the biologist Lynn Margulis, who devoted her career to studying bacteria: “The growth, reproduction, and communication of these moving, alliance-forming bacteria” lie on a continuum “with our thought, with our happiness, our sensitivities and stimulations.” https://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/n-Ch.7.html Gary R
Has there been any work (articles, dissertations, etc.) comparing the thinking of the two? As I recall, John, some of your papers touch on this.
Following is the article I presented at a conference on "Pragmatic process philosophy" in 1999: http://jfsowa.com/pubs/signproc.pdf Stephen
Here's somethinghttp://blog.uvm.edu/aivakhiv/2010/05/12/between-whitehead-peirce/
Thanks for that reference. I googled "peirce whitehead" and found many other references. Among them was a paper by Jaime Nubiola from 2008: http://www.unav.es/users/PeirceWhitehead.html Jaime also spoke at the 1999 conference. But the 2008 paper is more detailed. In it, he quoted Whitehead's biographer, Victor Lowe:
Convictions common to Peirce and Whitehead have been deservedly noticed by commentators, somewhat to the neglect of the first question of metaphysics: How shall metaphysics be pursued? — As a science among the sciences, says Peirce. Not so, says Whitehead; it seeks truth, but a more general truth than sciences seek (Lowe 1964, 440).
But I'm not sure that they disagreed on that point. In his 1903 classification of the sciences, Peirce said that the "special sciences" depend on mathematics and metaphysics. Therefore, metaphysics would be more general than the special sciences. Gary F
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.
This is one more reason for getting a more complete collection and transcription of Peirce's MSS. He was undoubtedly thinking about these issues for years, and he must have had good reasons for changing his terminology. But those brief quotations don't explain why. 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 .
