Gary F., Edwina, Cathy, Jeffrey, list, I would tend to agree with you, Gary that "a distinct ideal of Thirdness is necessary for synechism," something which a pansemiotic view would seem to undermine.
Still, as Wilfred Noth remarks in his article, "Ecosemiotics" https://www.ut.ee/SOSE/sss/articles/noth_26.htm Peirce himself sometimes seems to hold for a kind of pansemiotic position. Yet, as Noth further explains, Peirce also maintains that "only triadic relations between organisms and their environment can be of a semiotic kind." A theoretical semiotics of far-reaching ecological implications[. . .] is the one of Charles S. Peirce. . . His interpretation of the interactions between organisms and their environment seems often to be a pansemiotic one, for example, when Peirce writes: "The entire universe is perfused with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of signs" (CP 5.448, fn.). However, Peirce distinguishes among the relations between the objects and the organisms in the environment of humans between those which are only of a dyadic and those which are of a triadic nature, specifying that only triadic relations between organisms and their environment can be of a semiotic kind. A merely dyadic and thus nonsemiotic organism-environment interaction occurs when the organism is confronted with something which presents itself as a "brute fact" or in an effect of mere chance. The environment in such a dyadic relation is experienced as "eminently hard and tangible; [...] it is forced upon us daily; it is the main lesson of life" (CP 1.358). Only when such dyadic interactions become triadic relations is the organism-environment relation transformed into a semiotic one. * Noth explains that the organism must go beyond experiencing its environment "as brute fact" to interpreting it as having meaning or purpose, etc.* In a semiotic interaction, the organism experiences its environment no longer in its immediacy as a brute fact, but interprets it with reference to a third, a "meaning", purpose, goal, or law which transcends the immediate environmental situation (see also Nöth 1994c: 3f.). Such triadic relationships of semiosis are characteristic of cognitive processes (cf. Nöth 1994b), goal-directed behavior, and more generally, any mental activity. * This, of course, need not at all imply that semiosis occurs only in higher organisms, but that wherever an organism shows "any purpose. . . there is mind there" (CSP).* Semiosis in this sense is by no means restricted to processes in higher organisms, to culture and social convention. Any primitive biological organism already interacts semiotically with its environment when it *selects *or *avoids *energetic or material objects in its environment for the *purpose *of its own *survival*. Such triadic interactions of the organism with its environment constitutes a semiotic threshold from the nonsemiotic to the semiotic world. Peirce goes so far as to see the presence of *mind* in organismic nature when he writes: "The microscopist looks to see whether the motions of a little creature show any purpose. If so, there is mind there" (CP 1.269; see also Santaella Braga 1994). Well, all of the above I hope is settled enough for most of those on peirce-l and the biosemiotics list. But it's exactly as regards the "physico-chemical realm" that I become unsettled and uncertain. There would seem to be a need for some sort of "mentality" in the laws and habits of these physico-chemico expressions of Thirdness, and while i think I see this in evolutionary processes manifesting a kind of teleology, I'm not sure I see them in all laws and habits. But for me the jury is still out. Best, Gary R. " *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Gary Fuhrman <[email protected]> wrote: > Edwina, > > > > "undermines/underlies"? To me those verbs are opposites! > > > > A pansemiotic view, I take it, is that everything is a sign, just as a > pantheist view is that everything is God. For instance, a pansemiotician > might argue that since the laws of nature are signs, every law-abiding > phenomenon is a semiotic phenomenon. To me that undermines (not underlies!) > the idea that semiotic phenomena instantiate Thirdness to a degree that > distinguishes them clearly from nonsemiotic phenomena; and a distinct idea > of Thirdness is necessary for synechism. > > > > gary f. > > > > *From:* Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* 1-Apr-14 11:00 AM > > *To:* Gary Fuhrman; Peirce List > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:5459] Re: What kind of sign > is ANYTHING called "a > > > > Gary, you wrote: > > That's why I'm inclined to think that a pansemiotic view tends to > undermine a synechistic view. But this is not necessarily true of > *all*pansemiotic views. > > > > I certainly agree that a pansemiotic view undermines/underlies a > synechistic view; indeed, it, to me, underlies all semiosis. But, what do > YOU mean by 'a pansemiotic view'? > > > > Edwina > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] 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 [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
