Gary, You're correct that Deacon doesn't deal with "the cosmological question of the origin of life" in Incomplete Science, in The Symbolic Species, nor in any of his papers that I know of (see a list of them at http://anthropology.berkeley.edu/users/terrence-w-deacon), and I didn't mean to imply that he does. The question remains of considerable interest to me, however, and I brought it up solely because every emergentist I know of almost by necessity proceeds without asking from whence came the original ground upon which emergence builds. But, again, even Peirce saw that question as a pre-scientific one. I also certainly didn't mean to suggest, by commenting that "what can be 'built up' or 'emerge' or 'evolve' occurs in a systemic context (as the result of the reciprocal relations within a system--and as the system)," that the "not-yet-organized" represents a system. And I most assuredly agree with you that "a species and its Umwelt have to co-evolve," such a basic notion in biosemiotics that I didn't expect that my admittedly loose language could be misinterpreted by you of all people. However, I'll have to be much more careful in expressing myself in such matters as we approach a discussion of Deacon's book--"tossing off" emails on this topic will surely not do, and so I appreciate your criticism. As to teleodynamics and morphodynamics, I'll wait to comment until after you've responded to Jason's post, which I hope you will. If/when you do, please consider changing the Subject of this thread to reflect the new direction in which this discussion is going. Meanwhile I agree with your comment: GF: The whole idea of emergence and self-organization is that one kind of process (e.g. teleodynamics) can arise from interactions of lower-level processes (e.g. morphodynamics) even though no teleodynamic process has ever happened before, so there is no teleodynamic context at that point (though it will evolve from then on ... and the way it evolves will change the situation, so that the spontaneous emergence of a *new* teleodynamic process may be precluded in that environment -- as has very likely happened on this planet). Best, Gary Gary Richmond Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication Studies LaGuardia College of the City University of New York 718 482-5700 ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` IF POSSIBLE PLEASE CC messages to: [email protected]
>>> Gary Fuhrman <[email protected]> 1/12/2012 11:24 AM >>> Gary, GR: [[ Still, the question remains: whence the greater system? Sometimes this strikes me as one of those "chicken or egg" conundrums (I see Deacon wrestling with this too, but in an entirely different way). So, what can be 'built up' or 'emerge' or 'evolve' occurs in a systemic context (as the result of the reciprocal relations within a system--and as the system) and within an Umwelt. ]] GF: I don't think Deacon really deals with the cosmological question of the origin of matter and energy, if that's what you're asking here; he just takes them as the original ground on which emergence built, so to speak, without asking where that ground came from. He also takes evolution to be emergent, in other words he doesn't trace it all the way back to the original nothing as Peirce does. But i don't think Peirce would refer to the not-yet-organized as a "system" -- anyway i know i wouldn't, because to me a system is organized by definition. The term "context" is also problematic in this ... um, context. The whole idea of emergence and self-organization is that one kind of process (e.g. teleodynamics) can arise from interactions of lower-level processes (e.g. morphodynamics) even though no teleodynamic process has ever happened before, so there is no teleodynamic context at that point (though it will evolve from then on ... and the way it evolves will change the situation, so that the spontaneous emergence of a *new* teleodynamic process may be precluded in that environment -- as has very likely happened on this planet). Also it seems to me that a species and its Umwelt have to co-evolve, so that the species develops not *within* but *with* its Umwelt. -- But maybe i'm reading something into your utterance that's not what you intended. Gary F. } Everything is always becoming something other than what it was becoming. [Floyd Merrell] { www.gnusystems.ca/Peirce.htm }{ gnoxic studies: Peirce -----Original Message----- Sent: January-11-12 1:58 PM Gary, I think that you're right in suggesting that it's probably not a good idea to mix creation myths and the like--even Peirce's "non-scientific" early cosmological musings--with emergent or evolutionary theory. I would suggest, however, that such ideas do have semiotic and metaphysical significance for Peirce (say, as much as Big Bang theory has in the physical theories of some). Nonetheless, I would tend to agree with this statement: GF: Top-down causation, like Aristotelian formal cause, consists in the constraints imposed by an emergent system on the processes it has emerged from (and still depends on for its existence). For instance, the self-organization of the brain emerges from the constant chaotic “firing” of individual neurons, yet it organizes itself by imposing constraints on them, and it's the latter part of this circle that is “top-down”. This is indeed “from the whole to the parts” but not in the sense where the “whole” is the world of possibilities and actualities are parts. GR: Still, the question remains: whence the greater system? Sometimes this strikes me as one of those "chicken or egg" conundrums (I see Deacon wrestling with this too, but in an entirely different way). So, what can be 'built up' or 'emerge' or 'evolve' occurs in a systemic context (as the result of the reciprocal relations within a system--and as the system) and within an Umwelt. In any event, I'll look forward to your further thoughts regarding " the connection between Thirdness and reciprocality." As to your thoughts as to an approach for reflecting on Deacon's book in the forum, I think your ideas are excellent. So let's continue to toss this around a bit and see what we list members come up with. You and I seem in agreement that *Incomplete Science* represents some extraordinary research with implications for semiotics generally, and reaching, perhaps, even beyond biosemiotics. My own sense is that I'll be studying and reflecting on this book for many years to come. Best, Gary --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to [email protected] with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to [email protected] with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to [email protected]
