Jon, List, Jon quoted me, then commented:
GR: A theist might argue that this aboriginal semiosis is *not *strictly 'a *bio*tic', that it comes from the 'action' (so to speak) of a "*living * God." JAS: Champagne presumably uses the term "abiotic" because he is referring specifically to the forms of life that fall within the well-established science of biology. No theist would include God among them, and it also excludes mere atoms despite Peirce's conception "that they are not absolutely dead" (CP 6.201, 1898). In fact ... I am not especially concerned here with Champagne's use of the prefix 'bio' from his likely standpoint of "the well-established science of biology." Rather, I was looking at "abiotic" and "biotic" more from an etymological point of view. The "well-established science of biology" is surely Champagne's focus; and, if one reduces considerations here to the "science of biology," then surely, as you wrote, "No theist would include God among them." But why limit the meaning of 'bio-' here, that is, in consideration of the near certainly that, for Peirce, it has a much broader and deeper meaning than its modern biological one? The Greek root, *bio*, means *life*, not merely life as considered in the "science of biology," but much more generally. After all, aren't we reflecting her on the metaphysical nature of the universe before 'life' in the sense of the modern science of biology? That is, aren't we looking at this from a very broad -- even vast -- cosmological standpoint? I think, Jon, that you get closer to my purpose in introducing this topic in writing "Peirce's view is that the evolution of the universe is still in progress from living mind. . " As I see it, *living mind* is there from the get-go in Peirce's sense (although, again, I agree, most likely, not Champagne's). It would seem to me that from this Peircean perspective, there is actually no need for a "proof of abioticsemiosis." In a word, life (bio-) is always already there from, so to speak, "foundation of the world." Best, Gary R “Let everything happen to you Beauty and terror Just keep going No feeling is final” ― Rainer Maria Rilke *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 10:34 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Gary R., List: > > Thanks for bringing this interesting and indeed very brief article to our > attention ( > https://www.academia.edu/1237921/A_Necessary_Condition_for_Proof_of_Abiotic_Semiosis). > I will likely offer some detailed comments about it in the near future, but > for now I will just respond to a couple of your own remarks prompted by it. > > GR: A theist might argue that this aboriginal semiosis is *not *strictly > 'a*bio*tic', that it comes from the 'action' (so to speak) of a "*living * > God." > > > Champagne presumably uses the term "abiotic" because he is referring > specifically to the forms of life that fall within the well-established > science of biology. No theist would include God among them, and it also > excludes mere atoms despite Peirce's conception "that they are not > absolutely dead" (CP 6.201, 1898). In fact ... > > GR: But then the question immediately arises: whence comes this "semiosis > outside the living world"? > > > According to Peirce, physicosemiosis is *not *"outside the living world" > because "dead matter would be merely the final result of the complete > induration of habit reducing the free play of feeling and the brute > irrationality of effort to complete death. Now I would suppose that that > result of evolution is not quite complete even in our beakers and > crucibles" (ibid). Moreover, "all thought is in signs" (CP 5.253, EP 1:24, > 1868), and "Thought is not necessarily connected with a brain. It appears > in the work of bees, of crystals, and throughout the purely physical world" > (CP 4.551, 1906). While bees are obviously biotic, crystals surely qualify > as abiotic in Champagne's sense. > > In short, Peirce's view is that the evolution of the universe is still in > progress from living mind toward dead matter--"the physical law as derived > and special, the psychical law alone as primordial," such that "matter is > effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws" (CP 6.24-25, EP > 1:292-293, 1891). He holds that "*matter *is a peculiar sort of *mind* ... > mind so completely under the domination of habit as to act with almost > perfect regularity & to have lost its powers of forgetting & of learning" > (R 936:3, no date). This is precisely the opposite of Deacon's hypothesis > that mind emerged from matter. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 1:07 PM Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> List, >> >> I recently came upon this quite short article, "A necessary condition for >> proof of abioticsemiosis," by Marc Champagne (Semiotica, issue 197 >> (October 2013), pp. 283–287). >> >> *Abstract:* >> This short essay seeks to identify and prevent a pitfall that attends >> less careful inquiries into “physiosemiosis.” It is emphasized that, in >> order to truly establish the presence of sign-action in the non-living >> world, all the components of a triadic sign – including the interpretant – >> would have to be abiotic (that is,not dependent on a living organism). >> Failure to heed this necessary condition can lead one to hastily confuse a >> natural sign (like smoke coming from fire) for an instance of abiotic >> semiosis. A more rigorous and reserved approach to the topicis called >> for. >> >> John Deely endorsed, and so in a way (re)introduced, the idea of >> *physiosemiosis* (a term he is credited with coining) to contemporary >> semiotic communities, including the Peircean community. >> >> *Basics of Semiotics*, laid down the argument that the action of signs >> extends even further than life, and that semiosis as an influence of the >> future played a role in the shaping of the physical universe prior to the >> advent of life, a role for which Deely coined the term *physiosemiosis*. >> Thus the argument whether the manner in which the action of signs permeates >> the universe includes the nonliving as well as the living stands, as it >> were, as determining the "final frontier" of semiotics. Deely's argument, >> which he first expressed at the 1989 Charles Sanders Peirce >> Sesquicentennial International Congress at Harvard University, if >> successful, would render nugatory Peirce's "sop to Cerberus." Deely's *Basics >> of Semiotics*, of which six expanded editions have been published across >> nine languages, deals with semiotics in this expansive sense. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Deely#Contributions_to_semiotics >> In a footnote on Deely's approach to this matter, Champagne remarks: >> >> Although Deely was prompted to endorse the idea of physiosemiosis by his >> syncretistic study of Charles S. Peirce and John Poinsot (cf. Deely [Basics >> of semiotics, Indiana University Press] 1990: 87–91), his ambitious >> promissory note can also be motivated (perhaps more persuasively) by an >> inference to the best explanation. On this view,a complete absence of >> semiosis outside the living world would turn out to be more >> surprising/unlikely >> than its presence, however minute or sparse, in the non-living world . . >> . >> >> Deely's "inference to the best explanation" (that the "absence of >> semiosis outside the living world would turn out to be more >> surprising/unlikely than its presence") has always seemed persuasive enough >> to me. But then the question immediately arises: whence comes this >> "semiosis outside the living world"? >> >> Again, Champagne argument is that "in order to truly establish the >> presence of sign-action in the non-living world, all the components of a >> triadic sign – *including the interpretant* – would have to be abiotic" >> (emphasis added). >> >> But is this necessarily so? Or rather, is there a way of viewing one of >> the "components of a triadic sign" as *not* abiotic ("signs grow" CSP)? >> >> A theist might argue that this aboriginal semiosis is *not *strictly 'a >> *bio*tic', that it comes from the 'action' (so to speak) of a "*living* >> God." But then I was immediately reminded of Terrence Deacon's arguments in >> his "stunningly original, stunningly synoptic book" (Stuart Kauffman), >> *Incomplete >> Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter* (2012), which I have always >> thought would be more accurately subtitled, "How mind emerged from >> *constraints >> on* matter." But does that approach in a way beg the question? Whence >> those 'constraints'? >> >> Best, >> >> Gary R >> >> “Let everything happen to you >> Beauty and terror >> Just keep going >> No feeling is final” >> ― Rainer Maria Rilke >> *Gary Richmond* >> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >> *Communication Studies* >> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >> > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the > message and nothing in the body. More at > https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell. >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
