"Jerry LR Chandler" <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote:
Dear John, list,
My question was a follow-up to your own question on where to place semiotic in CSPsemiotic.jpg.
Question: Where is semeiotic?
To which, you said,As a formal theory, it would be classified with formal logic
under mathematics. But semeiotic is also an applied science when
it is used in perception, action, communication...
From what I’ve read, biosemiotic suffers from not being a formal theory at all.
Rather, it is a science (?) that is still seeking to understand itself (cf., Kull, Velmezova).
Even when compared to semiotic, which is this blob that hovers over The Sciences, Philosophical, Mathematical and Empirical, my question was about biosemiotic, which has a perspective that is different from semiotic because of its special focus on living systems (biology, hence biosemiotic).
I would say I have done biosemiotic, and yet, I don’t treat bacteria as a quasi-mind.
I see it as a thing that my mind treats. I recognize bacteria, how it is used in sciences and respond to it. Bacteria are grown as cultures or individually. We study it, we model its behaviors, we use it to study other things (eg., for cloning in medicine)..
Therefore, your response is strange to me.
Specifically this:
Very simply. Every living thing, from a bacterium on up, has
a quasi-mind with a phaneron that contains the kinds of signs
it recognizes and responds to.
Your discussion of the unconscious..
the even mention of it to my question..
that this is somehow consistent with modern views..
this is all very bizarre.
And I am still left with not having an idea on how to use CSPsemiotic.jpg to classify biosemiotic. I am sure the image you created, and devoted much effort to, charts well what may be in the record of Peirce’s writings, but I still don’t see how it is to be used to classify anything novel at all. That is, it does not appear to be adaptable. Perhaps I do not have the proper perspective. Should I turn it, be over it, twist it, wrap it, fold it?
I have a similar gripe as Edwina, above.
We should listen to what she’s saying.
Hth,
Jerry R
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 8:11 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:John, list
Agreed - and Pierce was quite specific that you don't need a conscious and separate Mind to be involved in semiosis.
My point, again, is that I don't see the function of this list's focus on classification and terminology. How does that, for example, help us in examining the semiosic processes in a bacterium or in a meadow, filled with diverse species, or in a hurricane, or in a societal ideological movement or in artificial intelligence?
And even more deeply - do we want to move out of the seminar room and into examining the semiosic processes of the outside world?
Edwina
On Fri 14/09/18 8:38 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent:On 9/13/2018 11:27 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote:
> How do you classify biosemiotic using your scheme?
Very simply. Every living thing, from a bacterium on up, has
a quasi-mind with a phaneron that contains the kinds of signs
it recognizes and responds to.
When Peirce said "present to the mind in any way", he did not rule
out the unconscious. In fact, there are 51 instances of the word
'unconscious' in CP. Following is one of them:
> I am prepared to maintain, operations of the mind which are logically
> exactly analogous to inferences excepting only that they are unconscious
> and therefore uncontrollable and therefore not subject to criticism.
> But that makes all the difference in the world; for inference is
> essentially deliberate, and self controlled. (CP 5.108)
The phrase "logically exactly analogous" implies that the unconscious
(or at least an important component) involves signs of the same kind
as conscious thought, except for the option of awareness. Dreams,
for example, involve processes similar to conscious thought, but we
have no control over the sequences.
Higher animals may have something similar to human consciousness.
But the phaneron of lower animals, plants, and bacteria is probably
completely unconscious. A continuum rather than a sharp dividing
line is likely.
Re biosemiotic: Peirce mentioned parrots, dogs, and bees. And he
talked about the origin of life as the first non-degenerate Thirdness.
He also mentioned crystals as a step along the way toward life. So
far, his guesses are consistent with modern views.
Deely and others talked about Jakob von Uexküll as another important
influence. Uexküll used the term 'Umwelt' for the world that a
living organism perceives and acts in and on. The phaneron of any
living thing would be an essential component of its Umwelt.
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 .
-----------------------------
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 .
