But logic is semiotics? And semiosis is a process of relations and therefore
quite a lot self-organizing through an evolution of meaning?
Søren
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Gary Richmond [mailto:richmon...@lagcc.cuny.edu]
Sendt: 1. juni 2014 19:07
Til: Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu; jeffrey.down...@nau.edu
Emne: RE: SV: [PEIRCE-L] De Waal seminar chapter 9, section on Mind, self, and
person
Jeff, Søren, Charles list,
I agree with your succinct analysis of this matter of the evolution of the self
through self-control, Jeff, and especially your very well-stated conclusion
that "there is much to be said for trying to avoid importing assumptions into
the normative sciences that will tend to bias our inquiry." This point has been
made any number of times on the list over the years--for recent example, by Ben
Udell in certain posts related to Peirce's Classification of the Sciences--but
it bears repeating. However, I'm currently on vacation so I won't say more just
now.
Best,
Gary
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York E202-O
718 482-5700
*** *** *** ***
>>> Jeffrey Brian Downard 06/01/14 10:51 AM >>>
Søren, Charles and list,
The argument Peirce gives about the logical conception of the self in "Question
Concerning Certain Faculties" is about the development of the self. In his
later works, Peirce makes it clear that the example of a child developing a
logical conception of self is meant to help us explore what is requisite for
the evolution of the self and the related capacities for self control more
generally. (CP, 7.381-4)
The story we might tell in the special sciences of physics, chemistry, biology
and psychology about the development of self-organizing and autopoietic systems
shouldn't be used in a normative theory of logic as a basis for developing our
logical hypotheses. In time, we'll want to reconcile the account of the self
developed in our logical theory with the accounts given in the special
sciences, but we should be wary of getting the cart before the horse. (CP,
7.581)
We could, of course, disagree with Peirce on this point, and there are many who
do. For my part, however, I think there is much to be said for trying to avoid
importing assumptions into the normative sciences that will tend to bias our
inquiry.
--Jeff
Jeff Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
NAU
(o) 523-8354
________________________________
From: Søren Brier [sb....@cbs.dk]
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2014 5:52 AM
To: charles murray; Peirce List
Subject: SV: SV: [PEIRCE-L] De Waal seminar chapter 9, section on Mind, self,
and person
Charles and list
But section 9.4 is not really about the definition of how subjects are
created. But it is clear for me that Peirce saw the creation of the subject as
a dialogical awareness of the limits of knowing. This creation is connected
somehow to the development of an individual body (a bodyhood) as mind and
matter are deeply connected through the semiotic process. In modern term for
this process is a self-organizing process creating an autopoietic unit, or what
you could call an autoposemiotic unit, which is what Peirce calls a symbol.
This symbol is a limited model of the huge argument that the universe is. We
thus have this deep inner connection to the universe we have evolved from.
Cheers
Søren
Fra: charles murray [mailto:charlesmur...@charter.net]
Sendt: 31. maj 2014 14:24
Til: Peirce List
Emne: Re: SV: [PEIRCE-L] De Waal seminar chapter 9, section on Mind, self, and
person
Soren -
In writing you I took the subject to be section 9.4, discussion of which you
might facilitate as emcee of chapter 9 as a whole. I apologize for any
inconvenience or awkwardness, and appreciate your response.
Best,
Charles
On May 29, 2014, at 12:42 PM, Søren Brier wrote:
I did read this long post and in the end I did not find a question for me and
my subject. So what question did you mean?
Søren
-----------------------------
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 .
