Gary R, Gary F and list: As you say, Gary R, for you, the 'jury is still out', whereas for some of us (such as me and myself and I!) - the verdict is clear; semiosis includes the physico-chemical realm.
A key problem in modern biology has been the reductionist approach where biological systems were reduced to 'bits' akin to atoms and the analysis was based on a mechanistic compiling of these bits into larger organisms. Biosemiotics and information science and complex systems analysis has been gradually providing a non-reductionist analytic frame within biology. This has moved, for some biologists, the reality of evolution from pure mechanical accident (Darwin's randomness) into self-organized interaction, ie, into semiosis. I think the same situation has existed within the physico-chemical realm, which also reduced matter to 'bits' and then, in a mechanical manner, analyzed how they all fit together. The laws, which in semiosis are understood as Thirdness, were assumed to be 'set' and thus essential, or 'apriori' and for some reason, some (many) people in the semiotic realm reject this type of 'set laws as an example of Thirdness. This, despite Peirce's own view that although Thirdness IS a key aspect of evolutionary and adaptive capacities, this same Thirdness could become set as in concrete in some far off time. And, despite Peirce himself writing in his outline of the origin of the universe that habits did begin and exist in this ancient realm (which was only the era of physico-chemical matter). I've met up with no convincing arguments against semiosis within the physico-chemical realm, and myself cannot see how its habits or laws could emerge and continue to function, without semiosis. What is different within the biological realm is that the habits became 'internalized' so to speak within the species/collective. Rather than the particular individual being an iconic token of the laws (type) of, eg, hydrogen.....within the biological realm, the laws became stored within each particular token and thus, were open to interaction with other types and thus, changes. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary Richmond To: Gary Fuhrman Cc: Peirce List Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 2:39 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:5459] Re: What kind of sign is ANYTHING called "a 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
