Dear John, list,
You quotes Margolis: The growth, reproduction, and communication of these moving, alliance- forming bacteria become isomorphic with our thought, with our happiness, our sensitivities and stimulations. I agree with this, too. But my reservation about not treating bacteria as quasi-mind remains. How is this even possible? That is, I agree with Peirce’s statement Accordingly, just as we say that a body is in motion, and not that motion is in a body we ought to say that we are in thought and not that thoughts are in us. So, there doesn’t seem to be a position that is wrong. Everything is admitted, which is to say that through one side of your mouth, there are purposes stated whereby we are supposed to be precise but at the same time, you constrain yourself not to isomorphy but to homomorphy. But where does that leave us? That is, you say such things as Given what Peirce wrote, I believe that he would agree. This all sounds like insanity where no one is not wrong but the goal remains to be right. These don’t appear to be the same, yet they do appear similar. Again, I admit that you have put forth a sincere historicist analysis. And as to whether Peirce answered my questions, I don’t think we’re looking to the same. Here, isomorphy and homomorphy, as you define it, matters. Best, Jerry R On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:32 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > Edwina, Jerry R, Jon AS, and Jerry LRC, > > Peirce answered your questions. I like his 1903 *outline* because > it's a clean and simple summary of everything he wrote about the > sciences and their interrelationships. But as an outline, it omits > nearly all the details. > > ET > >> I wonder if this list will ever move beyond debates [and again, I >> consider them debates and not discussions] about classification >> and terminology >> > > I definitely do not want to debate. I consider this thread as a > *collaborative inquiry* in trying to understand what Peirce said > and fill in the gaps. My only goal is to get a clear understanding > of that outline and its relationship to all of Peirce's writings. > > That classification has some very important implications for biology, > but I'll have to address that separately because it requires more space. > > JR > >> 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. >> > > I agree. But I'll repeat the diagram in CSPsemiotic.jpg. Note that > mathematics includes all possible theories about anything. Every > theory, formal or informal, in every branch of philosophy and empirical > science is an application of some theory of mathematics. > > JR > >> 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). >> > > Semiotic also has a focus on living systems: human beings. Peirce > himself talked about extensions to parrots, dogs, bees, and crystals. > > JR > >> I don’t treat bacteria as a quasi-mind. >> > > The biologist Lynn Margulis, who spent her career studying bacteria, > considered bacteria on a continuum with all higher life forms: > >> The growth, reproduction, and communication of these moving, alliance- >> forming bacteria become isomorphic with our thought, with our happiness, >> our sensitivities and stimulations. >> > > Given what Peirce wrote, I believe that he would agree. My only > correction would replace the word 'isomorphic' (equal form) with > 'homomorphic' (similar form). This quotation comes from > https://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/n-Ch.7.html > > At the end of that article are various comments by prominent > researchers in biology and related fields. They're helpful > for understanding Lynn M's contributions. > > JAS > >> The other two--quality and brute reaction--are not Signs themselves, >> and cannot be reduced to Signs >> > > I agree. I thanked Gary F. for finding a quotation by Peirce > that clarified that issue. > > JAS > >> Peirce repeatedly made it very clear that he considered Logic as >> Semeiotic to be a Normative Science, not a branch of phenomenology. >> > > No. He explicitly said that logic is a branch of mathematics. > As mathematics, it is applicable to every science without exception. > But most sciences, including phenomenology, do not make value judgments. > Under normative science, he explictly said that it is a "partial and > narrow" point of view. See CP 1.573. > > Fundamental principle, which Peirce said many times in many ways: > Mathematics and logic are the foundation every science without > exception. In *every* science, logic is used in the broad sense. > But normative science is an exception: it's used in a narrow sense. > > JLRC > >> Semantics alone is merely philosophy abused. >> Mathematics alone is not even logic. >> > > I don't know how you define those terms. What I've been trying to do > is to summarize Peirce's classification of the sciences as accurately > as possible. If you can find any quotations by Peirce that support > those two points, please let us know. > > JLRC > >> CSP focused on language as a path of syntaxies to arguments that >> illuminated the natural groundings of human communication in an >> extraordinary wide sense. >> > > I agree. He said that linguistics was the best developed of all > the psychic sciences. That would probably imply that all the > other psychic sciences depend on linguistics. But that does not > negate his point that all sciences, including linguistics, depend > on math and logic. > > 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 .
