[PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics] Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis

[Christophe Menant]

> Dear all,
> Let me come back for a while to the key questions as formulated by Dipti :
> ”What was the very first instance of semiosis and why, where and how did it 
> occur? What preceded it, and what triggered it?"
> We do not have scientifically acceptable answers to these questions but we 
> can get close to them by using an evolutionary thread backwards, and 
> correspondinly highlight some related aspect.
> It is first worth recalling that  semiosis cannot exist alone but has to be 
> related to some meaning of a sign, to some entity having a finality. And the 
> today understanding of the evolution of our universe positions a first 
> finality at the emergence of life (understood as a local volume far from 
> thermodynamic equilibrium and acting on the environment and on itself to 
> maintain its status).
> Such a background brings to value a local system submitted to an internal 
> constraint as a  natural model for semiotics and meaning generation. This has 
> been highlighted at Biosemiotics Gatherings 2015 & 2016 
> (https://philpapers.org/rec/MENMGF-2 )and upgraded at IS4SI 2017 
> (https://philpapers.org/archive/MENICA-2 ). The focus is then on a system 
> submitted to an internal constraint and potentially covering a spectrum going 
> from a pre-biotic level to a post-human one. That frame includes an 
> evolutionary nature of self-consciousness (with anxiety limitation as a key 
> constraint), and leaves open the nature of life where quantum mechanics is to 
> have a say (more to come on that). Simple definitions for agency and autonomy 
> are introduced.
> Surprizingly, that perspective (kicked off at Gatherings 2002) has found 
> little echo in the  Biosemiotics or Pierce-l communities (as a possible 
> modeling of the Interpreter).
> Best
> Christophe
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad

-
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 .

RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis

[Stephen Jarosek]

I agree with you, Helmut, that the concept of culture is extremely
important. More important than the vast, overwhelming majority of people can
hope to understand. I was blessed with having to grow up in a dysfunctional
war-refugee family, and having to make sense of a
hyper-materialistic-hedonistic “fun” culture that believes its own bullshit
(actually, all cultures believe their own bullshit, by definition, but the
most hedonistic-materialistic are the worst… but I digress). Suspended
within a no-man’s land without sensible truths to anchor to, I had to
formulate my own interpretations from scratch. Eastern religions such as
Buddhism often refer to the importance of letting go of assumptions and
definitions, as part of spiritual practice. Far from the leisure of
spiritual practice, this was a condition that was foisted on me as a matter
of survival, it was not a condition that I chose.

What people don’t realize is the importance of imitation. They don’t get it,
that all that they ever have are assumptions. Imitation is actually the
wrong word… a more precise phrase is “knowing how to be”. It’s about the
replication of behavior… taking your culture’s assumptions for granted.
Maybe we need a new word that synthesizes assuming with imitating.
Assimitating maybe? Yes… for want of a better word, let’s stick with that…
assimitating. And let’s define it in the context of “knowing how to be”.
First of all, one has to choose a niche from their culture to belong to.
Secondly, they have to assimitate and replicate the assumptions of their
chosen niche, to strictly observe its limits. One can move across niches,
and one must choose one to belong to, but limits must be observed. Niche
boundaries do not necessarily appear strict to those observing them,
however, because they assume that this is “just” the way that reality is.
Observing niche boundaries is a fine balancing act between the courage of
individualism and the cowardice of conformity. Courageous observance
(testing the limits) is for leaders, timid observance is for followers. But
no matter what, niche boundaries MUST be observed. For those that fail to
observe said boundaries, or push the boundaries too far with their courage,
and there are sizeable numbers of both, their lot is often
disenfranchisement, invisibility, maybe even psychosis or schizophrenia.

So what are the boundaries of the culture as a whole? As I’ve mentioned
before in other threads, culture is analogous to a thought. A society of
people is to culture what a brain of neurons is to thought. Metaphors from
chaos theory are informative. Role models as attractors. Boundary
conditions. Initial conditions. A culture comprised of subcultures (niches)
is still a unity. The farthest niches from one another, within a culture,
are still fundamentally united in their sharing of the assumptions that
matter (pragmatism). Assimitation within a culture is integral to
pragmatism, because it’s how people establish the assumptions that matter.
Assumptions are habits… thirdness.

Initial conditions is a concept that has especially caught my attention of
late. It relates to scaffolding. Meaning is built upon meaning, and the
initial conditions… first experiences… are important because of this. You
can’t just wake up one morning and decide to change your world-view with the
affirmative “this is the first day of the rest of my life.” But it also goes
much deeper than that. I am recognizing this as I walk around the city
streets of my grandfather’s homeland, with the realization “hey, so that’s
where I got that quirky trait from!” (yes, I’m still discovering things
about myself). It begins with mother's nurturing
 … nay, it begins
in the womb… there are several examples of the latter referenced in my paper
Pragmatism, Neural Plasticity and Mind-body Unity
 .

Which brings us to your reference to fundamentalist religions, mafias, etc.
That is, groupthink. What is the distinction between groupthink and healthy
culture? One clue lies in the moral individualism of Christianity, its
relationship to courage, and Jesus as a role model (I’m not a Christian, but
I respect why Christianity was effective). Groupthink is a feature of fear
and cowardice, and it sticks like glue, turning people into unquestioning
NPC-bots yearning for social approval and the need to belong. Particularly
relevant to today’s culture of social media. Hedonism and “fun” cultures are
obsessed with needs and, despite their apparent “freedoms” and indulgences,
are contained within strictly self-enforced limits revolving around social
approval.

Buddhism seems to incorporate a lot of these understandings. I’d just like
to see one thing corrected though. Buddhists assume that all problems stem
from desire. No, desire (firstness?) is downstream from