Well, as usual, I don't agree with the rejection of the physico-chemical realm
as a semiotic realm, since I consider that it is, indeed, must be, semiosic.
In a way, it depends on one's definition of 'semiosis'. IF you declare that the
mediative Relation, the Representamen of habit-inducement, MUST itself be
capable of, within a generation, adaptive or evolutionary change in these
habits - and that if it is instead stable and fixed as ''effete Mind' that it
is NOT semiosic, well, then your definition precludes semiosis within the
physico-chemical realm.
But IF your definition of semiosis removed the necessity for change in the
habits and instead defines semiosis as a transformative interaction of three
relations, operating as a function of f(x)=y...then, the physico-chemical realm
can be considered semiosic.
I certainly consider that the mediative habits or laws of the physico-chemical
realm are, fortunately, fixed - and became fixed a millenia years ago. But that
doesn't change the process of morphological formation of atoms and molecules -
it's still triadic; it still operates within that mediative set of laws. It's
that process of morphological formation that, for me, defines 'what is
semiosis'...not the question of whether or not that mediative Relation has the
capacity to evolve.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Richmond
To: Gary Fuhrman
Cc: Peirce List
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:5459] Re: What kind of sign is
ANYTHING called "a
Gary F., Edwina, Cathy, Jeffrey, list,
Gary F. wrote:
We do want to affirm the continuity of the relations between physical
existence and semiotic reality, but we don't want to assert that there is no
difference between them. The only solution that I can see is some kind of
dimensional hierarchy (or rather holarchy) where the one is nested in, or
emergent from, the other. I think the best procedure is to 'zoom in' on the
apparent boundary (or meeting place) between the physical universe and the
semiotic, and show that it can be subdivided in strictly physical terms into
stages of emergence. In other words, what appeared to be a point on the cosmic
evolutionary timeline turns out to be a line segment which can be further
subdivided. For instance, Deacon does this in Incomplete Nature by defining a
holarchy of physicalprocess types, namely homeodynamics, morphodynamics and
teleodynamics. The latter supports embodiment of triadic (semiotic) relations,
while the prior segments of the timeline do not; and yet each supports the next
development. This gives us physical-semiotic continuity without pansemiosis.
Well put! Of course I agree, except that I don't see Deacon's work towards an
emergent dimensional holarchy as an 'instance' or example of this approach, but
the only game in town. Please direct me to other work that I may have missed
which supports this kind of thinking of a development which both "gives us
physical-semiotic continuity without pansemiosis" along with some emergent
process, like teleodynamics, which finally allows for the embodiment of
semiotic relations.
While I temporarily removed myself from the biosemiotics list in order to
concentrate on preparing for, and in other ways supporting, the seminar on
Kees' book, while I was on that list I saw no great interest, or rather, almost
no interest except your own in what Deacon was arguing, indeed some hostility
towards it. Yet I continue to think that that discussion, as difficult as it no
doubt would be--and nigh on impossible without the participants having read
Incomplete Nature--is yet an important, perhaps essential one to have from both
a general semiotic standpoint, but especially from the perspective of
biosemiotics.
Best,
Gary
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Gary Fuhrman <[email protected]> wrote:
Gary R., Edwina, Cathy, Jeffrey, list,
Gary, thanks for this explanation from Nöth, which is much more nuanced
than the bit from his Handbook of Semiotics (which I included in my reply to
Jeff before I saw your message).
The trouble with the pansemiotic issue is that it catches us between
synechism and a hard place. We do want to affirm the continuity of the
relations between physical existence and semiotic reality, but we don't want to
assert that there is no difference between them. The only solution that I can
see is some kind of dimensional hierarchy (or rather holarchy) where the one is
nested in, or emergent from, the other. I think the best procedure is to 'zoom
in' on the apparent boundary (or meeting place) between the physical universe
and the semiotic, and show that it can be subdivided in strictly physical terms
into stages of emergence. In other words, what appeared to be a point on the
cosmic evolutionary timeline turns out to be a line segment which can be
further subdivided. For instance, Deacon does this in Incomplete Nature by
defining a holarchy of physical process types, namely homeodynamics,
morphodynamics and teleodynamics. The latter supports embodiment of triadic
(semiotic) relations, while the prior segments of the timeline do not; and yet
each supports the next development. This gives us physical-semiotic continuity
without pansemiosis.
Of course, this is not a critique of Edwina's brand of pansemiosis; rather
it's my excuse for not devoting more time to Edwina's work. This is an
important function of abduction, to limit one's information overload, and each
of us has to do it for him- or herself. So that's why I don't want to argue
about it. Let somebody else do the jury duty. J
gary f.
From: Gary Richmond [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 1-Apr-14 2:40 PM
To: Gary Fuhrman
Cc: Peirce List
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.
-----------------------------
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 .
